Talk:Cat

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons : a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"

I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.

The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Either balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."

Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:

"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"

What do you think? 176.153.196.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Unclear what changes you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

pppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppp 38.111.117.18 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC) nkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

 Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

--206.57.217.137 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Bold texthttps://www.reddit.com/r/cats/

Dear Wikipedia,

You should add a ¨fun facts¨ category to this page. As a passionate cat lover, I happen to know many interesting cat facts I wish to share with the world. Thank you for considering the above. WhiskerPaige (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the article already consists of nothing but fun facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (i.e. if fun facts are missing from the article, improve the article rather than add a "stuff" section)) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Toxin" doesn't mean what you think it means

See the article "toxin": "A toxin (from Ancient Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms; synthetic toxicants created by artificial processes are thus excluded. The term was first used by organic chemist Ludwig Brieger (1849–1919)."

So a cat would only rarely be "exposed" to toxins (produced in some other organism's cells), it would more likely be exposed to environmental toxicants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.207.204 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis catus

F. catus is an semi-archaic classification synonym to F. silvestris catus. (The sidebar states that it's a subjective synonym, which are classification names that some would argue overlap perfectly, while others may have differing ways of differentiating the two nomenclature. Basically, exact classification is up for debate.) However, the opening of this article states that domestic cats are F. catus and free-ranging ferals are F. silvestris catus as though that's an objective and widely used way of using those nomenclatures, which is untrue. I'd like to see a clearer opening statement stating F. catus and F. silvesris catus are both appropriate and synonymous names for domestic cats, and perhaps linking to the explanation of the differences listed lower in the article (which unlike the opening, is actually correct). I would be happy to rewrite the opening myself but I'd like permission before doing so given the importance of this article.

In addition, if the two terms are truly subjective synonyms rather than true synonyms, that needs to be reflected in the Taxonomy paragraph as well, with actual sources. -- 05:47, 9 August 2016‎ 2601:192:4603:28c0:195b:5327:9f4c:7599

I'd like to add that feral cats ARE domestic cats--they are the exact same species! I don't know who wrote that part of the article but their assertion makes absolutely no sense. I think I'll stick with Felis sylvestris catus to distinguish them from African wildcats even though if you want to get technical that's the same cat too. They cross-breed with absolutely no trouble at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.44.180 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology: 'kattepus' listed as a Swedish word

It's been raised before (page 12 of the talk archive, I believe), but since it's still in the article (including in the Norwegian version of it, which makes even less sense in my eyes) I thought I should bring it up again.

In the section regarding etymology, pussycat is said to be "related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt". However, as far as I've been able to determine, kattepus has never been a Swedish word. The Swedish version is instead "kissekatt" or its older version "kisse". The Swedish Academy's Dictionary (Svenska Akademiens Ordbok) lists examples as far back as 1730 of usage of the word "kisse", but has no entries or mentions of "kattepus". There is one mention of "kisspuss" (dialectally "kissepus") as a compound term, however, but with only one lyrical quote demonstrating its use.

It seems more likely that the word might have been Danish, since the Danish word for cat, kat, is changed to "katte-" in compound words (such as "kattemad", cat food, "kattehår", cat hair, and others), and "pus" is a term of endearment for children and animals, also used as a calling sound for cats. A quick google search, however, says that the word is used in a well-known Norwegian children's song by Alf Prøysen (1914-1970).

However, Norway and Sweden share a very long border, not to mention that at the beginning of the 16th century Sweden was still part of the Kalmar Union (comprised of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, including any outlying territories of those three countries) and had before that often shared its monarchs with Norway (King Magnus IV of Sweden, Norway and Scania, 1319-1343 (Scania 1332-1360), and King Haakon VI of Norway (1343-1380) and Sweden (1362-1364), to give two examples). So at the time frame the article references (the 16th century), I'd wager that Norwegian was used in Sweden as much as or more than Swedish itself was used, considering how the native languages of Wales and Finland were treated when the countries were conquered by England and Sweden, respectively. I'd also guess that the term "kisspuss" or "kissepus" was coined at some point during that time due to the mix of languages (not only Swedish and Norwegian, but also Danish).

While it's entirely possible that the relatively similar "kattepus" came to be about the same time, I can find no evidence of it, and it seems to me that if it was used here it was a much more short-lived term than the other two (implying it was less popular and/or commonly used). It is, of course, entirely possible that it's an even older term, since the four languages of Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all developed from the same root (Old Norse), and it seems reasonable that the languages remained closer than they are today for quite a while after becoming separate languages. But going that far back, it'd be more fair to call it "Late Old Swedish" or "Early Modern Swedish" instead of "Swedish". It's similar to claiming that a word that hasn't been used since Middle or Early Modern English should be listed as an English word. Just a few sentences later, a distinction is made for Early Modern English compared to English, after all ("In Early Modern English, the word 'kitten' was interchangeable with the now-obsolete word 'catling'"). And if it's a Danish or Norwegian term, borrowed into Swedish, it is similar to saying that "nom de guerre" is an English term.

I'd also like to add that Swedish and Norwegian in that sentence are not listed under the heading of "may have been introduced from", but rather under "related to", which as far as I can tell can include more modern terms that are related to the term you're comparing it to (in this case, the English "pussycat"). In that respect, listing "kattepus" as a Swedish word makes even less sense to me.

To put it simply, I would like to request that one of the following be done about it:

1) That the word "kattepus" in the etymology section be replaced by "kisse, kissekatt" since from evidence available to me those two seem to have been the more common, and the prevailing, terms used in Swedish.

2) That the reference/comparison to "kattepus" is removed entirely from that sentence.

94.254.54.7 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

"The African wildcat, Felis silvestris lybica, is the ancestor of the domestic cat." is arguably wrong, should be "The African wildcat... and the domestic cat share a most recent common ancestor." or something along those lines.

Fethalen (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

The article "cat" is extremely complete, but I have doubts regarding the introductory section or the following reasons : a) the first paragraph sets felis catus within the scope, first and foremost, of breeding associations. This is both morally dubious and historically inaccurate. Further, to introduce the cultural concept of "breeds" in the first paragraph as an empirical statement of fact is again, questionable. (Though a hint of doubt is allowed with mention of the competing commercially active cat fancying associations). The breeding of specific morphological traits in cats is a commercial activity, one that occurs to the detriment of cat health. Further, cats conforming to breed standards defined by these commercially interested associations form a minority of the global population of domestic cats. As such, breeding and cat associations may well deserve there own section, but do not deserve mention in the first paragraph! International Cat Care (http://icatcare.org/), a non profit organisation (to which I am not affiliated) has some excellent, and critically, disinterested, advice on this subject. I suggest, that all articles discussing domestic cats in terms of cat fancying breeds be reviewed, in the light of the excessive harm being caused to these animals, and the exploitation of Wikipedia by commercially active or interested groups in this subject. The extract in question, which I request be moved into an appropriate subheading follows "There are more than 70 cat breeds; different associations proclaim different numbers according to their standards. The International Progressive Cat Breeders Alliance (IPCBA) recognizes 73 cat breeds while TICA (The International Cat Association) recognizes 58, CFA (The Cat Fanciers' Association) recognizes 44 and Federation International Feline (FIFE) recognizes 43"

I note that the 1st paragraph has since been suitable modified, removing explicit reference to cat breeding organisations. A good move.

The third paragraph, while containing valuable information that deserves thorough coverage about the impact of cats on their environment, appears unfairly weighted in appearing in the introduction, and appears politically motivated in this light. A separate section or inclusion in an existing section covering cats and their interaction with the environment (positive/negative and neutral) is desirable.) The UK based RSPCA even argues feral cats can have a positive impact on the bird population "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds." http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Either balance the paragraph with appropriate statements of both neutrality and value affirmation concerning cat interaction with the environment, or move the entire paragraph into an appropriate subheader. To be clear, the text in question follows, "Cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, they can be bred and shown as registered pedigree pets, a hobby known as cat fancy. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[9] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to the extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations.[10] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely, responsible for the extinction of 33 species of birds, and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations."

Would it be possible to modify the third paragraph, in order to show broader balanced reach of understanding and less activist inclined rhetoric, with the following:

"Like many small and medium sized mammals, cats have a high breeding rate. Under controlled breeding, specific morphological characteristics can be bred and the cats shown as registered pedigree pets, or breeds, an activity which is an aspect of cat fancy, the appreciation of domestic and feral cats. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large over population of feral cats in some regions of the world, requiring population control, both for the well being of cats and for the well being of their local environment.[8] In other regions of the world, feral cats may be considered part of the native animal population, although proximity and interbreeding between feral and wild cats has proven to be a source of controversy in specific regions such as Scotland (ref: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/land-mammals/wildcats/). Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within specific regions and may have contributed to the extinction of isolated island populations in Oceania.[9] The presence of feral cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reintroduction in otherwise suitable locations. However other studies suggest that where feral and domestic cats have a long established presence, such as in the Middle East and Europe, they do not have a detrimental effect upon bird or small mammal populations. (ref : http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx)"

What do you think? 176.153.196.167 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Unclear what changes you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

pppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppp 38.111.117.18 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC) nkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

 Not done the faeces of the species are already discussed under the Physiology section. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

--206.57.217.137 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Bold texthttps://www.reddit.com/r/cats/

Dear Wikipedia,

You should add a ¨fun facts¨ category to this page. As a passionate cat lover, I happen to know many interesting cat facts I wish to share with the world. Thank you for considering the above. WhiskerPaige (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the article already consists of nothing but fun facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (i.e. if fun facts are missing from the article, improve the article rather than add a "stuff" section)) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Toxin" doesn't mean what you think it means

See the article "toxin": "A toxin (from Ancient Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms; synthetic toxicants created by artificial processes are thus excluded. The term was first used by organic chemist Ludwig Brieger (1849–1919)."

So a cat would only rarely be "exposed" to toxins (produced in some other organism's cells), it would more likely be exposed to environmental toxicants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.207.204 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Felis silvestris catus vs. Felis catus

F. catus is an semi-archaic classification synonym to F. silvestris catus. (The sidebar states that it's a subjective synonym, which are classification names that some would argue overlap perfectly, while others may have differing ways of differentiating the two nomenclature. Basically, exact classification is up for debate.) However, the opening of this article states that domestic cats are F. catus and free-ranging ferals are F. silvestris catus as though that's an objective and widely used way of using those nomenclatures, which is untrue. I'd like to see a clearer opening statement stating F. catus and F. silvesris catus are both appropriate and synonymous names for domestic cats, and perhaps linking to the explanation of the differences listed lower in the article (which unlike the opening, is actually correct). I would be happy to rewrite the opening myself but I'd like permission before doing so given the importance of this article.

In addition, if the two terms are truly subjective synonyms rather than true synonyms, that needs to be reflected in the Taxonomy paragraph as well, with actual sources. -- 05:47, 9 August 2016‎ 2601:192:4603:28c0:195b:5327:9f4c:7599

I'd like to add that feral cats ARE domestic cats--they are the exact same species! I don't know who wrote that part of the article but their assertion makes absolutely no sense. I think I'll stick with Felis sylvestris catus to distinguish them from African wildcats even though if you want to get technical that's the same cat too. They cross-breed with absolutely no trouble at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.44.180 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology: 'kattepus' listed as a Swedish word

It's been raised before (page 12 of the talk archive, I believe), but since it's still in the article (including in the Norwegian version of it, which makes even less sense in my eyes) I thought I should bring it up again.

In the section regarding etymology, pussycat is said to be "related to Swedish kattepus, or Norwegian pus, pusekatt". However, as far as I've been able to determine, kattepus has never been a Swedish word. The Swedish version is instead "kissekatt" or its older version "kisse". The Swedish Academy's Dictionary (Svenska Akademiens Ordbok) lists examples as far back as 1730 of usage of the word "kisse", but has no entries or mentions of "kattepus". There is one mention of "kisspuss" (dialectally "kissepus") as a compound term, however, but with only one lyrical quote demonstrating its use.

It seems more likely that the word might have been Danish, since the Danish word for cat, kat, is changed to "katte-" in compound words (such as "kattemad", cat food, "kattehår", cat hair, and others), and "pus" is a term of endearment for children and animals, also used as a calling sound for cats. A quick google search, however, says that the word is used in a well-known Norwegian children's song by Alf Prøysen (1914-1970).

However, Norway and Sweden share a very long border, not to mention that at the beginning of the 16th century Sweden was still part of the Kalmar Union (comprised of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, including any outlying territories of those three countries) and had before that often shared its monarchs with Norway (King Magnus IV of Sweden, Norway and Scania, 1319-1343 (Scania 1332-1360), and King Haakon VI of Norway (1343-1380) and Sweden (1362-1364), to give two examples). So at the time frame the article references (the 16th century), I'd wager that Norwegian was used in Sweden as much as or more than Swedish itself was used, considering how the native languages of Wales and Finland were treated when the countries were conquered by England and Sweden, respectively. I'd also guess that the term "kisspuss" or "kissepus" was coined at some point during that time due to the mix of languages (not only Swedish and Norwegian, but also Danish).

While it's entirely possible that the relatively similar "kattepus" came to be about the same time, I can find no evidence of it, and it seems to me that if it was used here it was a much more short-lived term than the other two (implying it was less popular and/or commonly used). It is, of course, entirely possible that it's an even older term, since the four languages of Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all developed from the same root (Old Norse), and it seems reasonable that the languages remained closer than they are today for quite a while after becoming separate languages. But going that far back, it'd be more fair to call it "Late Old Swedish" or "Early Modern Swedish" instead of "Swedish". It's similar to claiming that a word that hasn't been used since Middle or Early Modern English should be listed as an English word. Just a few sentences later, a distinction is made for Early Modern English compared to English, after all ("In Early Modern English, the word 'kitten' was interchangeable with the now-obsolete word 'catling'"). And if it's a Danish or Norwegian term, borrowed into Swedish, it is similar to saying that "nom de guerre" is an English term.

I'd also like to add that Swedish and Norwegian in that sentence are not listed under the heading of "may have been introduced from", but rather under "related to", which as far as I can tell can include more modern terms that are related to the term you're comparing it to (in this case, the English "pussycat"). In that respect, listing "kattepus" as a Swedish word makes even less sense to me.

To put it simply, I would like to request that one of the following be done about it:

1) That the word "kattepus" in the etymology section be replaced by "kisse, kissekatt" since from evidence available to me those two seem to have been the more common, and the prevailing, terms used in Swedish.

2) That the reference/comparison to "kattepus" is removed entirely from that sentence.

94.254.54.7 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

"The African wildcat, Felis silvestris lybica, is the ancestor of the domestic cat." is arguably wrong, should be "The African wildcat... and the domestic cat share a most recent common ancestor." or something along those lines.

Fethalen (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)