Jump to content

Talk:Animal hoarding/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old discussion

This article has a lot of POV issues, foremost being that it lumps all hoarders together -- Hoarders keep abnormally large numbers of animals for whom they do not provide even the most basic care. The sometimes hundreds of dogs or cats kept by a single hoarder generally show signs of abuse such as severe malnutrition, untreated medical conditions including open sores, cancers, and advanced dental and eye diseases, and severe psychological distress. In 80 percent of the cases studied, authorities found either dead or severely ill animals in hoarders' homes. Many hoarders make a serious effort to provide care, basic and otherwise. And "hundreds"? That's a gross exaggeration -- those numbers are extremely rare. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote this page, but it is factually correct, and shows a strong understanding of the problem. Whatever effort hoarders make, is not nearly enough to take care of the numbers they keep. Hoarders "collect" as many animals as will physically fit on their property. It's unsanitary. Click on the ALDF link for more information. --Brianbeck 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not factually correct. As I said, it lumps all hoarders together. There needs to be some distance from this, as it's making gross overgeneralizations. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are coming from. The page does not "lump" anything. Hoarders BY DEFINITION will "collect" as many animals as they can. It's simply impossible to provide even basic care to the hoard. I'll go so far as to say that if someone is providing basic care successfully, they are not "hoarders" in the sense of seriously ill people who abuse large numbers of animals but "fanciers" -- who by definition groom and care for animals. I think you are confusing the colloquial term of hoarder, someone who perhaps has a large number of animals, with someone who has a problem. I think you should, as I suggested earlier, click on the links on the page. Cheers. --Brianbeck 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
For example, the Illinois statute cited on one of the links defines hoarding as "nability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness, and death." Cheers. --Brianbeck 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe ADDED the npov tag 22:52, 1 May 2006. The NPOV tag was unjustified. Zoe advised me that removing a tag repeatedly is vandalism. However, there never was an NPOV dispute until Zoe added the tag. Shouldn't that be vandalism?

It seems that Zoe should have added a dispute of factual accuracy instead NPOV. The claim appears to be that the facts are wrong. On the other hand, the sources listed are adequate as to the factual accuracy.

I'm trying not to be disagreeable, but I'm disaggreeing that it's even possible to disagree!!! Animal hoarding is criminal. You can't defend it, just as you can't defend murder, child abuse, armed robbery, or sexual harrassment. The notion that animal hoarding is "good for the animals" is entirely new to my ears. If anything the article should be locked to before Zoe's edit on May 1. --Brianbeck 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag indicates that only one point of view of the subject has been addressed. Just because there wasn't a dispute before doesn't mean that there can't be one now. This should be resolved with discussion, not more reversions. --InShaneee 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to discuss. Look at this page. Who is doing the discussion here? Does Zoe know anything about this topic? Can you please explain to me what the other side of the issue is? --Brianbeck 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Zoe's original comment here sums up the problems with this page. --InShaneee 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem that occurs with hoarding! Did you check any of the links? Should I list the exact instances? --Brianbeck 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a factual dispute and not a POV dispute? --Brianbeck 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's POV because presently it presents the 'point of view' that animal hoarders are bad people and that the situation always ends in disaster (while that may be the most likely outcome, it is not a certainty). --InShaneee 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The introductory sentence gives a definition of the phenomenon. "Animal hoarding is a human behaviour that involves the keeping of higher than typical numbers of animals as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability (emphasis mine). So as long as someone merely keeps an unusual number of pets that are properly cared for he isn't practising hoarding. I also don't see where animal hoarders are made to look "bad". It is an animal welfare issue, one that happens thankfully only rarely but is quite capable of overwhelming a local shelter. Dr Zak 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Zoe says that "Many hoarders make a serious effort to provide care, basic and otherwise." If someone knows that the situation is overwhelming he isn't by definition an animal hoarder. The POV tag is misplaced, this is at most a definition issue.
But that's not true. Many hoarders do seriously make an effort to provide care for their animals, but they find themselves overwhelmed and their animals suffer. They're still hoarders, but they do still attempt to care for their animals. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There argument here is that it is not true (that's not true). First, isn't that a factual dispute, not a NPOV dispute? Second, I suspect it would be more acceptable to show that the facts are disputed, rather than to say that it just isn't true.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't know. One occasionally reads press releases from the RSPCA or other charities, saying that so-and-so many pets have been recovered from somewhere and that they are in poor condition. However, the sheer scale of the problem should be enough to open anyone's eyes and seek outside help, unless they are seriously obsessive-compulsive. Dr Zak 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, here's my solution. We understand that the definition includes harm coming to the animals. If we don't understand that, we need to read the article again and again until we do. Now, if someone wants to argue that neglectful harm to animals is a *good* thing, go right ahead. Otherwise the NPOV tag is preposterous. You can't argue about a tangent that's NOT INCLUDED in the definition of the term... Rainman420 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is unwarranted, as we're describing a behavior. Animal hoarding is collecting more animals than can be cared for, so whether the person tries to accomplish the impossible has little bearing on the eventual outcome, which is bad. Good people can do bad things, everyone knows this, we don't need to go through every article on every bad thing and explicitly state it. For anyone who wants some more reinforcing information, here's an extra source: Psychiatric Times --Trylobyte 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

The name of the article is POV. (Isn't there a dispute tag for that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That's the accepted word for the phenomenon. [1]], [2] [3] Dr Zak 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Gotta agree with the Dr, here. That is the recognized term. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the nomenclature is the problem. I think the article should describe a mental disorder. This mental disorder is accepted in veterinary medicine, and my edits have been focusing on making the article adhere to the standard described in veterinary literature.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Combining with Cat hoarding

Cat hoarding is logically a subdivision of animal hoarding. I think that article should be joined with this article.--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that cat hoarding is the same as animal hoarding. --WikiCats 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree Dogsdontknowimnotbacon 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the term; Distinguishing with animal keeping

I think the real problem that those who want to keep the NPOV view article here is that we may all be talking about the same thing and agreeing with each other BUT WE NEED TO GET OUR DEFINITIONS STRAIGHT. There obviously is a spectrum: on one end you have people with one pet, say a goldfish. Then you have your regular owner, say one or two-- upwards of five companion animals. The spectrum isn't quite linear; somewhere in there are people who live in the country and keep not only "regular" companion animals but horses, goats, and even llamas (they're big in Oregon). The same group will often raise livestock which is also to be differentiated from companion animals. Then you have people who engage in dog breeding or cat breeding. After a certain point, there is animal hoarding. The number of animals on the property are so great, and the capabilities of the owner with respect to supporting the pets so minimal, that it is hard to categorize this type of ownership on the same spectrum with other forms of pet ownership. Yet the occurence of this phenomenon is not isolated. The people who engage in it are found to share a number of common characteristics, symptoms if you will. Animal hoarding should be reserved only for this category of "pet ownership" (I hesitate to use the term). When does pet ownership become hoarding? It's pretty obvious. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, you'll know it when you see it. And btw an animal hoarder probably would classify herself as a breeder. Finally, should not the fact that this is a problem already recognized by the veterinary community mean anything? That is gaining widespread recognition in the psychiatric community as well?--Brianbeck 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially pathognomic is the recidivism rate. One of the papers up at the Tufts site says that it is almost 100 %. Dr Zak 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

Is this really a stub anymore? It seems pretty exhaustive to me.--Ben Applegate 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Making Light is not an attack site

Making Light is not an attack site. It is a notable, oft-cited group blog. The link to Making Light in this article does not attack -- or even mention -- any Wikipedians. Doctorow 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your user talk page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
See my essay for commentary on the whole contentious "attack sites" issue. *Dan T.* 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The 6th 'reference' link sends users to an error screen. --NoMorePolitics (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Photouploaded (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cat lady page

The Cat lady was full of NPOV problems, so you can not dump that page in this article and make this into a POV problem. The old Cat lady page can be found here [4]. POV problems can be fixed as they are introduced. --WikiCats (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging the content without immediately resolving the NPOV/flow/style issues is a permissible method of merging, and does represent progress. That Cat lady page had been unmerged for months, and this article is not currently have any quality rating. Merging the content would allow incremental progress and allow the NPOV issues to be addressed by multiple people, rather than by the single person performing the merge. -- Bovineone (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That page was full of problems from start to finish. This is what was said about it on its Talk page:

"This article is incredibly biaised against cat ladies. It should either be deleted or shortened, or be re-written to show both view points for and against cat ladies. In the article's current state, several sections present a very unbalanced opinion about cat ladies."

"the article does not even "feel" like a Wikipedia article"

"It certainly lacks neutrality"

"the article is very one-sided"

It had so many problems that to drop it in this article turns a good article into a real problem. --WikiCats (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a draft version of the merged article, based on my prevision revision at User:Bovineone/Animal_hoarding_draft. Editors are invited to participate in cleaning it up. -- Bovineone (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Draft articles should be in talk or user space. I've moved your draft to your user space. Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


These are some of the problems with the Cat lady article.

It starts out by saying a cat lady is a stereotype. A stereotype is a conception or image held by one group of people about another group. So it is not an objective treatment of animal hoarding.

Placing so much of that page in this article creates an unbalanced view of who an animal hoarder is. The blame goes to women who are old, collect cats and create fire hazards.

The article goes to great length to prove the stereotype is a reality. None of the references it gives can be checked.

I believe that little if anything of that article can be salvaged without causing a good article to become POV. --WikiCats (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A cat lady is only a stereotype until you live a floor above an elderly woman with 38 cats and one dog in a 60 sq. metre apartment, all in extremely pitiful condition. The apartment below her complained that urine leaked through the ceiling, the entire (16-floor!) building stank year-round, and neighbours could not open windows in the summer for the smell. The entire neighbourhood was infested by strays that escaped or were released by her. Animal services and even police were intimidated, as she would have her dog attack them on sight. Local laws did not provide any opportunity to deal with the issue. My own mother appeared on effin national television to attract attention to the case, but to no avail.

Stereotype, you say?! Only until you meet one... 128.195.186.13 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Adieu

Isn't there a problem that the definition of animal hoarding here explicitly excludes anyone that can take care of the animals in their care, where a 'cat lady' is a broader term that could be used for someone with a relatively few number of cats? --86.128.50.177 (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very American-centric

This article is very heavily focused on the phenomenon of animal hoarding in America. Which is quite understandable, considering that it is not a very important topic and most of Wikipedia's editors are American. I don't feel as though I have the relevant expertise to try and discuss the problem of animal hoarding in other countries and legal issues, but I'd certainly suggest it for anyone who has the time and inclination. Cheers! JF Mephisto 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a template to point this out on the main page. It really is a worldwide phenomenon seen in dozens of countries, but the references are all to the OSHA (whatever that is), the American SPCA, etc., etc. --NellieBly (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Is animal hoarding a strictly American phenomenon, or does it just have different ethical and legal ramifications in different countries? I have to admit, the template confused me in this regard. Johnnyt471 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a reference in the legal solutions section referencing similar issues in the UK, however I feel that more are required so the template remains.--Miles9000 (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

cat mind-controlling bacteria

Does this news item belong on this page somewhere? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/25/medicineandhealth.thisweekssciencequestions1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.10.193.24 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

First impressions from a new viewer

As an outsider looking at this page for the first time, It really seemed to be lacking in the Characteristics of a Hoarder section. I really learned or clarified nothing by reading this article. It seems more like a short dictionary def of what a hoarder is NOT, than an encyclopedia description of what a horder is?

I'd personally like to see it expanded to include information about factual characteristics of a hoarder - like maybe some of the most prominent facts from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p000425.html, such as: They tended to personalize and anthropomorphize their pets and viewed themselves as rescuers of suffering or unloved animals (Worth and Beck, 1981 Multiple ownership of animals in New York City. Trans Stud Coll Physician Phila 3(4):280-300.) some studies show that they are female (76%), a large proportion (46%) were 60 years of age or older; most were single, divorced or widowed; and almost half lived alone. The most common animals involved were cats (65%) and dogs (60%). Based on the data collected, Patronek estimated that there are 700 to 2,000 new cases of animal hoarding every year in the United States. The conditions described were fairly consistent in both studies. Dead or sick animals were discovered in 80% of reported cases, yet in nearly 60% of cases the hoarder would not acknowledge the problem (Patronek, 1999). In 69% of cases, animal feces and urine accumulated in living areas, and over one-quarter of the hoarders' beds were soiled with feces or urine. Hoarders' justifications for their behavior included an intense love of animals, the feeling that animals were surrogate children, the belief that no one else would or could take care of them, and the fear that the animals would be euthanized. As in Worth and Beck's (1981) report, a significant number of hoarders had nonfunctional utilities (i.e., bathroom plumbing, cooking facilities, heat, refrigeration and electricity).

Or from http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/behind_closed_doors_the_horrors_of_animal_hoarding.html: ...'What's more, hoarders are usually well-educated and possess excellent communication skills. Many hoarders have an uncanny ability to attract sympathy for themselves, no matter how abused their animals may be, which is often how hoarders manage to fool others into thinking the situation is under control."Very few hoarder cases simply involve good intentions gone awry, despite the insistence of the hoarder that he or she loves the animals and wants to save their lives,...'

Feel free to edit and improve it. Your sources sound helpful, it would be nice to see them here. Be bold and go for it! Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Animal hoarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Animal hoarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal hoarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_hoarding/Archive_1&oldid=1235083709"