Draft talk:Cat predation on islands

Badly fails WP:NPOV and several other policies

This is obviously a WP:GREATWRONGS- and WP:ADVOCACY-style single-point-of-view editorial that consists of original research in which the writer is taking disparate sources of data and claims, and then coming to the editor's own personal conclusion that "Ziswiler and Greenway are liars playing a Chinese-whispers game". There are various reliable sources on cat predation cited in detail at Cat predation on wildlife, and this draft is an attempt to create an "anti-article" to argue against them. It also utterly fails to be an article on "cat predation on islands" and is something like "one viewpoint on particular claims made about cat predation on some islands".

What should happen here is that a small amount of material from this draft might be usable, within WP:DUE limits, at that article, to present an alternative viewpoint. But the idea that cat predation on islands is not severely problematic and has led to the extinction of a number of species appears to be fringe viewpoint, and at very best is "an Exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources". The most that can probably be said here is that some of the species believed to be extinct were pushed to the brink of extinction but not quite over the cliff, such that the "33 species" claim quoted in some sources has been questioned by some other sources (though sometimes on "species" definitional grounds not on false-extinction grounds). We do not need an enormous table of data (Wikipedia is not a database of conservation information), just a concise summary in a single paragraph at the proper article. But all this "A said X and then I think B turned that into X+1 years later, and C ran with it as X+2, so I have proved these writers are cannibalizing from each other" original research is not permissible. That and much of the rest of this draft consists of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and/or synthesis, which must as matter of clear policy comes from independent, reliable, secondary sources.

In short, this doesn't seem to any different from someone trying to write an article denying climate change or denying vaccine efficacy and safety. To the extent denialist claims deserve any due weight, it is low, and they are covered as fringe claims not as "alternative facts" that Wikipedia is presenting in its own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: The closely related piece at Draft:Human–cat conflict is basically rehash of this draft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)