Talk:Tortoiseshell cat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cats (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Removal of gallery[edit]

Just a moment, DreamGuy, where are all these depictions you claim that are already shown? You have removed them all, so now nobody is any the wiser what the different types of torties, etc. look like. Citing WP:NOT is all well and good but it does not necessarily refer to other encyclopaedias who possibly do have a series of photos, yes, call them "galleries". What makes you say encyclopaedias don't show photos?

Are you telling us you have a god-given right to decide what is encyclopaedic and what isn't? Wp:Not does in fact state: Wikipedia is not censored. Well, your high-handed action comes pretty close to some kind of absolutism. Please, do discuss this with others first before you remove anything on such a scale. I hope you put some of the clearer ones back at least. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

God didn't give me the right, it's pretty standard on WIkipedia to not just have a bunch of photos. That's what a link to Wikimedia Commons is for. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So what are you going to do about Sweet chestnut to name but the nearest one which immediately comes to mind. Are you going through it like wildfire? You will be popular. The greater part of all articles have pictures of some kind, where do you draw the line? Does that mean all readers uninitiated as they may be, have to make their way through Wikimedia every time they want to see what it is all about. Don't forget we are talking about the reader who wants to consult Wikipedia, what does he/she know about Wikimedia, people don't necessarily know anything about our set-up. Be reasonable, is it a likely scenario? I don't think it is. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, the article is not just a bunch of photos. The photos serve an illustrative, encyclopaedic purpose (although I suppose the number could be reduced). WP:NOT would apply to an article which would be mainly a collection of pictures. This is just not the case for this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
See #Photos above for reasoning, DreamGuy. Galleries can be used perfectly fine in articles when they serve a purpose. The big gallery of torties/calicos before we instituted the current scheme was indeed afoul of guidelines, but the current setup is far more useful. howcheng {chat} 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TOC[edit]

I haven't found anything in MOS or WP:SECTION that indicates when an article is too short and that its Table of Contents needs to be turned off. Could you link and quote to the criteria that you are using please? Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sincere apologies User:Berean Hunter. Long ago, during my first edits i've read the entire wikipedia guidelines and i thought there was such a rule, so i just linked those here again without re-refering. The reason i removed it is that it doesnt seem important, since the article is not too long to be navigated by a toc. And the reason i really want it removed is because it stretches the article unnecessarily and leaves a lot of blank space... Kind regards. Rehman (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding here and the polite response. I happen to favor keeping the table of contents (articles are encouraged to grow! :)) but will continue to keep an open mind. Perhaps we should give it a day or two to see what other editors here think as well? Agreeable to you? Other editors feel free to comment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 :) Agree. Have a nice day. Rehman (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger prompt removed[edit]

"It has been suggested this article should be merged into Cat coat genetics"? Where? You might suggest it but there hasn't been the slightest mention before. The "genetics" section is only one of several others in "tortoiseshell cat", the "description" one being just as important which would get lost in a generalized article on "genetics". Therefore we must keep this article "tortoiseshell cat". Dieter Simon (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tortoiseshell or calico cat[edit]

Please note that tortoiseshell cats in the UK are predominently brown, with reddish-yellow or white patterns and the colour described under calico is in fact named "calico". This applies to cats in Germany where they are called "Schildpattkatze" which denotes a "cat of tortoisechell colour". So please do not automatically assume that all tortoiseshell cats in England are "calicos". Dieter Simon (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---Not really sure if I am mentioning this in the right spot,--- The search term "Torbie" redirects to this article, yet torbies are unmentioned within. They are mentioned on the page for tabby (as a torbie is a patched tabby in tortie colors) so the search term Torbie should either go to that page(tabby), or information on torbies should be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aen13 (talkcontribs) 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tama (cat)[edit]

Dieter, ordinarily I would remove a vanity picture of a cat placed in a cat article. However, looking at the link for Tama, I found out that this catr was probably as famous as the Clinton's calico cat was (in its own context of course). Therefore, I would thus value the picture of this notable cat above an equal-quality picture of an unknown cat. Please realize that this is not a vanity insertion (not *my* cat!). If you think there are already enough pictures in the article proper, we could switch another picture out to insert this one. If you think this picture fails on the grounds of picture quality, please expound. In any case, I would say this picture should make it in on grounds of WP:NOTE.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have moved this from Dieter Simon talk
Yes, I see what you are saying, but it isn't a question of quality of picture, but this being an article about tortoiseshell cats, what they are like and how they are differentiated from other types of cats, certainly not about individual cats. Ok, someone has created an article about an individual cat Tama (cat), as a unique institution. Why not just include it as "See also" section ? I would very much like to submit it the opinion of other people, what they think.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Calico cat[edit]

My kitty's pic is a great photo of a calico cat. Please let me put it. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:A cat named Kylie.cropped.jpg is the photo in question. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, at least let me add it to the gallery. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging tortoiseshell cat with calico cat? No way![edit]

The prompt to advocate merging the article "tortoiseshell cat" article into "calico" is totally unacceptable. The tortoiseshell cat is not identical to a calico cat. Please read the article properly. I fear this proposal is yet another example of the Americanisation of Wikipedia. In the UK the term "Calico cat" is used for a very specific colour combination only, with much lighter colours than what is classed as "tortoiseshell cat". In Britain chocolate-brown-black-ginger-white combinations are tortoseshell not calico cats. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you think this has anything to do with Americanisation. In the US, a calico is not a tortoiseshell, and a tortoiseshell is not a calico. There may be some slight disagreement as to exactly what a tortoiseshell is; in the US they frequently have no or extremely little white. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Calico cats is a new article. Meanwhile, calico cat has been a redirect to this article since July 2002, which is probably one of the most stable redirects on Wikipedia. Thus, calicos have been merged in here for a long, long time. If there is any new information in calico cats, that needs to be moved over here instead. Besides, the only real difference (in North America) is that the color groups on calicos are more distinct, although there may still be a fair amount of brindling. howcheng {chat} 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any merger unless the article is renamed to something like 'Calico and tortoiseshell cats'. Just because some redirect has been incorrectly in place for a long time is beside the point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Calico? Tortie?
I'm OK with Tortoiseshell and calico cats (North American calicos being UK tortie-and-white). After all, the genetics are mostly the same. However, I also don't see the need to fix what ain't broke. It's been eight years and nobody until now has complained because it's not an important distinction. There is no bright line separating calico and tortoiseshell; it's more like a spectrum because you can have cats with both distinct patches of color and mixed black/orange areas, as in this photo. howcheng {chat} 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the Cat Fanciers' Association breed standards, if it's an American Shorthair, then it is definitely not a tortie. I can see it's not an Exotic, but if it were one, it might (on closer inspection; need to clearly see all four paws) be a Tortoiseshell and White. None of the breed standards I checked allow it to be called just 'tortoiseshell' because they don't allow any white (other than cream). So, it's a calico in the US and a tortie and white in the UK, but it's a tortie in neither. I believe what is broken, no matter how long it has been so, should be fixed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I just checked The International Cat association (TICA) which also says a tortie has no white. If it does have white, then it is a "black tortie with white" (aka calico). VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
But we're not talking about breed standards, so what the CFA has to say is irrelevant IMHO. We're talking about tortoiseshell and calico patterns as a manifestation of chromosomes in purebreds as well as moggies. The point is that all calicos are tortoiseshells (because of the tri-color fur) but not all torties are calicos. Thus it makes sense for calicos to be included in this article, and also why I have no objection to changing the title to include both. If they were to be separate articles, the contents of each one would be nearly identical, apart from the description of the appearance. We have a similar situation with thorns, spines, and prickles -- they are different plant structures, but all serve the same purpose, so combining them into a single article makes sense. howcheng {chat} 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you want to talk genetics, I researched it some. The genetic difference between a calico and a tortie is that the calico has the 'white spotting gene' whereas the tortie does not. Therefore, I strongly oppose any merger which suggests that the two patterns are a subset of one or the other. BTW, I finally realized that the photo is of a calico tuxedo (i.e., a tuxedo with a tortie pattern where black fur should be) with coat color genes OoSs. VMS Mosaic (talk)
Tortie and white
I don't think that's correct, because both calico and tortie have all three colors, and tortie-and-white cats also have the white spotting gene as well. Like this photo, I don't think most people would call that "calico" by any stretch of the imagination. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think most of the disagreement is national (UK vs US). I believe the photo caption is the best description (i.e., it has a mostly tortie coat with some white spotting). In the US in common usage (as opposed to breed standards), the term calico describes a largely white cat with patches of other colors, while the unmodified term tortoiseshell (i.e., no "with white") describes a multi-colored patched cat without any white. After checking my only British cat encyclopedia and the web, I'm still not sure what constitutes a calico in the UK. I also checked the archives of this page where it appears that this issue was left undecided due to lack of consensus. Is it valid to say that 'tortoiseshell' without a modifier means the same thing in both the UK and US (i.e., a tortoiseshell with no white)? VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Put it this way: if tortoiseshell cat and calico cat are different in genetic make-up (we don't seem to be fully in agreement here) then they should not be in the same article; if they are definitely similar as just being tri-colors then why not include them in one article. I tend to agree with howcheng, no harm done in renaming the article "Tortoiseshell and calico cats" or something to that fact.
However, "Tortoiseshell cat" being the much older article and that name being the much more popular name, I still think tortoiseshell should be retained or be the first of the two - if any renaming needs to be done. I also still maintain, if I may say, that for the chocolate-brown, black and yellowish-ginger combinations the name tortoiseshell is more often used. In fact, the average person (and I don't mean by that experts who know what they are talking about) in the UK would be hard put to visualize what a calico looks like. Ask the person in the street what a tortie looks like, they would know, ask them what a calico is like, they wouldn't have any idea.Dieter Simon (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Dieter Simon (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate to merge Tortoiseshell cat wiki entry with Calico cat wiki entry. Please pay attention to the difference between Tortoiseshell and Calico cats. Take note that they are not based on cat breeds, but they are based on colours. You can see that many cat breeds contain different colour patterns.

  • A calico cat which is a white-based cat has many blotches of black & orange which does not mix. Black, orange and white are separated.
  • On the other hand, a tortoiseshell cat has black patches with red or orange mixed together.

See [[1]] & [[2]] Kimberry352 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think merging Tortoiseshell with Calico is not appropriate. And more accurately, the preferred pattern of Japanese Bobtails is "mi-ke" (three-colored cat with white, black and red/orange separated patches). All calicoes are "mi-ke", but not all tortoiseshell. "Mi-ke" doesn't need to, but is preferred to be white-based. See maneki-neko to see the preferred color balance.
A tortoiseshell with no white part in her body is not "mi-ke", because Japanese people think she is two-colored (black and red/orange). And unfortunately, if two colors are mixed, the pattern is the least favored in Japan, and called "sabi" (rust) or "zoukin" (rag). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.0.142.202 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove infobox about merging this article with Calico Cats?[edit]

Since the discussion seems to have died, should the little infobox mentioning it at the top go away? I would, but I don't want to go off and do something crazy like that without permission. Thanks! -UncleNinja 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just removed it. If anybody has a problem with that, just revert my change. Thanks! void UncleNinja() { talk(); } 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It never had much support in first place, yes. Yes, it seems perfectly alright. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :D
For some reason Calico cat redirects to this article! I'm going to change that redirect to redirect to Calico cats instead. I'm also removing the infobox on Calico cats. :) void UncleNinja() { talk(); } 02:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was going to merge the two, I just never got around to it. Otherwise both articles are essentially the same except for the description part. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Inline citation for "tortitude"[edit]

(also refer to section further down talk page for "Tortitude")

  • The citation provided for the section on tortitude (cite note #10) links to an about.com site, yet the citation itself contains the letters "NYTimes" in reference to what is presumed to be The New York Times. It is my understanding that about.com is irrelative to NYTimes. why are these letters included in this citation?69.106.191.22 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there's no evidence that that opinion piece was ever published in the New York Times. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm the guilty party...when I added the reference, it was related somehow to being in the NY Times webpage as a feature article on torti's by the author named. My bad for not giving much, much more detail in my citation, such as article date, title, author, et all. All the more reason for using the better template for citations that prompts fill-in-the-blanks for all the facts I left out. (Live and learn). Having worked on a bunch of music album articles, I know how archives of links can just vanish. Thanks for catching this and updating the link accordingly. I shall now search for yet another more appropriate citation. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, just to prove myself not crazy, here is some information I dug up: from the New York Times webpage: The New York Times Company’s About Group, which publishes the advice and informational Web site About.com, has appointed a new chief executive: mediadecoder blog nytimes.com = date of publish July 26, 2011, 6:47 pm; About.com Gets New Chief Executive (author) By Jeremy W. Peters. This was just so I could rest, I'm such a perfectionist. I didn't want to think of myself as having given a false reference. I'll be timid, not bold and not reinsert "NY Times" to my citation since there is no indication in the link. What do y'all think though about it being a proper reference? Fylbecatulous talk 23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That explains a puzzling phenomenon. I don't think it should be re-added for two reasons, firstly, the New York Times Company owns a number of independent publications and media so it is not appropriate to leave readers to possibly think that the editors of the New York Times newspaper are involved with about.com, and secondly, about.com has apparently been sold. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds wise, thank you. I imagine that unilaterally, about.com is not much of a reference. Thanks again for amending my citation and I'll see if I can find another reference, so that Tortitude doesn't vanish from the article in a future edit. I know it exists and so does my tortie, but proving it by references is another thing altogether. In agreement, Fylbecatulous talk 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
About.com, like AllExperts.com and the rest of their ilk, is a user-edited site with nothing like Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so it is categorically unreliable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I cannot locate an online reference that will satisfy all that alphabet soup in the above post. ツ. I imagine "tortitude" can be classified as just so much folklore, although my veterinarian certainly believes it. I did not originate the section on Tortitude. This article probably showed up on an edit test log I watch. I thought I had successfully rescued the section from deletion by finding a suitable source, and I have already admitted to my being led astray by the "NY Times" identification in my two posts above. I am going to give this about 10 heartbeats, ten shakes of a lamb's tail and ten twitches of my cat's tail and come back and delete the section as unencyclopaedic and POV (I do know my alphabet). Fylbecatulous talk 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Good plan. I was going to delete it myself in a day or two if no one came up with something more reliable. NB: I was not criticizing you in any way, only About.com, on which it is very difficult to find any article at all that doesn't have errors and nonsense in it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Having worked with cat rescue for a number of years, I can attest to the "tortitude" phenomenon, except that I was never able to find a reliable source to document it. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my real-life reference is a rescued feral tortie. She is pilled with a daily dose of Prozac, incidentally. Ah, these anecdotal evidences... Fylbecatulous talk 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations, or pictures[edit]

Personally I am very tolerant of what some would see as excessive illustrations, but not of excess pictures that don't illustrate anything much. I have just deleted a picture from this article; it was a perfectly OK picture, but did not to my mind illustrate anything that was not already illustrated. Some of the remaining pictures are in little better case. I reckon that here in Talk we should discuss the things we think there is reason to illustrate, then we should select, obtain or supply suitable pictures for each item, and thereafter get sniffy and exclusive about newcomers. Any thoughts? JonRichfield (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Tortoiseshell"[edit]

The usage of Tortoiseshell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:tortoiseshell material -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it called torttoise shell? Should there be an etymology section?[edit]

Peigne en écaille.jpg

Doesn't look like a tortoise's shell . . . I googled about for an answer to this. I feel like this article should say why they are called that but I don't know, I am guessing it is similar to tortoise shell guinea pigs and butterflies but can't find a reason for the name for those either. Popish Plot (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've always believed the name refers to the irregular patterns in cut tortoiseshell, as in the picture to the right. A comb like that would at one time have been a familiar object to many people. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes someone on wiki told me this was the kind of thing like "the sky is blue", we don't need a reliable source for that. What if there was a blue cat, it'd have that name because it looked blue. I just didn't see it as being so obvious but then again I don't know much about tortoises or their shells. Popish Plot (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody seems to publish the statement. I just checked Stephens, G. and Yamazaki, T. 2000. Legacy of the Cat: Revised and Expanded, 2nd Edition. Chronicle Books. isbn:0-8118-2910-3, but there is no explanation of the term. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right with the original post here that at one time many people would be familiar with this, although I wasn't. And no cat experts ever bothered to put in a book or publication an explanation that sounds like "tortoiseshell cats are so named because their coats look similar to a tortoise shell." But it can be considered obvious like the sky is blue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Popish Plot (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Tortitude[edit]

(also see related section further up talk page on "Inline citation for "'tortitude"')

  • Hello, I feel a mentioning of tortitude is worthy here but I see it was previously removed due to not having reliable sources so I shall try to find some. But would like to start with discussing some I found.

https://books.google.com/books?id=whWCoAEACAAJ&dq=%22Tortitude%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RxZBVauZApHLsATB0IDACg&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA

Doubtful. this author has written a string of books on dogs and cats: <http://www.amazon.com/Clifford-Worthington/e/B00MTWU3EU>, but I can find nothing online regarding his credentials. In fact, I can find nothing online about this author outside the byline for these books. Fylbecatulous talk 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bloomsbury/azoos/2012/00000025/00000004/art00003

a book abstract for a Bloomsbury group (I have no idea on who owns Bloomsbury) but see my comment below at next link: Fylbecatulous talk 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/judging-a-cat-wrongly-by-the-color-of-its-coat-97549864/?no-ist

This one is reviewing the book abstract above. This group based their research on an Internet-based survey of 189 people to discover "hidden cat biases". These participants were probably self-selected ( chose to answer out of interest in the subject; so this makes it non-valid as scientific research). The Smithsonian Institute itself seems reliable, but again this is written as a blog and the writing does not pin down anything definate about tortitude. It does say that there is little hard evidence that such a connection is real between coat colour and behaviour. Fylbecatulous talk 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Popish Plot (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Fylbecatulous bringing discussion from my talk page here for context:

Hello, I am looking to improve the wiki article for tortoiseshell cat. I'd like to find sources information on tortitude and was wondering if you could help? Popish Plot (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for asking. I am going to bring the discussion to the article talk page. I was sad it had to be deleted in the first place. I know it is true as a behaviour but several other good editors and I could find nothing before. Many cat related sources are not trustworthy, since we all just love our felines and want to express experience over what is scientific. I will try. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 20:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I already brought it up as a new topic on that talk page. But I also saw it being discussed in the past and you were bringing up good points so I wanted to bring it to your attention here on your page. I was looking for sources that are specifically published studies not just a cat fan website or something less reliable. I am not going to try to prove whether tortitude scientifically exists yes or no, but just prove that it is a phenomenon that many tortoiseshell cat owners feel they have tortitude. I don't think it's a minor trivial non notable thing but a widespread belief. And I won't do original research, just look at research already done by cat experts. Popish Plot (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

end from my talk page...

I have also looked again online and did not see anything scientific; just blogs:

This is my favourite because it has a section on "The experts weigh in: my favourite quote: “I often tell clients that torties are the redheads of the cat world,” says feline veterinarian Dr. Fern Crist, who practices at Just Cats Clinic in Reston, VA. (but we cannot use any anecdotal remarks, even by a vet). We need scientific research. So, I am going to comment about your links above in my next edit. Fylbecatulous talk 15:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait for others to show up here, but my thinking is that if this material goes anywhere, it would be best placed generally in the Cat behavior article about cat colours and perceived behaviour. (That article has issues as well that are tagged). There are many aspects of this: misperceptions about cat colours keep certain ones from being adopted from shelters...There are many page watchers for cat articles from the WikiProjectCats (banner at talk page top). We try our best to keep our content sourced and worded in a tone that is not WP:OR (Original research), because cat lovers tend to express experience and beliefs instead of science. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this info should go into the section of folklore. These are lucky cats and called money cats? Doubt that could be scientifically proven. :) I do have original research (the tortoiseshell cat that owns me, Leeloo, is quite firey). But that has no place here I know. One thing I saw in your conciouscat link is a quote from Jackson Galaxy. I think he is kind of a prominent cat person, has his own show. But did he really say that? Not saying the blog owner made it up just that it's not a reliable source. I think Tortoiseshell cats are primarily domesticated cats these days so why not a mention of such a huge phenomenon that many of the human owners believe in? If of course reliable sources exist showing such a belief exists and is notable. Popish Plot (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the link (diff) to the version we had right before I removed the 'tortitude' section: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tortoiseshell_cat&diff=prev&oldid=531165897> . It was right below the folklore section, so you have a good idea to place your additions in with the folklore section. I agree that The Animal Planet and Jackson Galaxy sound promising, but again, I have searched and can find no confirmation online that he said this. So, unless, someone turns up with a scientific manual, I believe the source you found for Smithsonian Magazine: (Judging a Cat (Wrongly) by the Color of its Coat) stands the best change of being considered credible. This page and your talk page are now on my personal watchlist, so I will continue to follow. Fylbecatulous talk 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fylbecatulous. Yes I saw that previous diff and I saw how it had a source but it was to about.com. I don't know if it would need such a large section, perhaps just one sentence on tortitude. One thing I am wondering about is Jackson Galaxy's tv show "My Cat from Hell". I haven't seen every episode but I plan to watch more just for my enjoyment but also pay attention to whether he mentions a tortoiseshell cat. It seemms a torty might be mistaken for a cat from hell due to the feistyness but Jackson Galazxy would have good tips. But that would be the best way to see if Jackson really had tortitude views, his show.Popish Plot (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a possible source, although I am not sure how notable or reliable it is. http://www.treehouseanimals.org/site/DocServer/2012_Fall_Winter_News.pdf?docID=861

"Tree House Advisory Board Member and star of Animals Planet’s “My Cat From Hell” Jackson Galaxy shies away from generalizing about cats baed on physical characteristics. That being said, he does agree that cats like torties, calicos and orange tabbies tend to have a much more distinct personality. He does note however, that it is important to not let the stereotypes breed prejudice when dealing with torties or any other cat. Tree House’s Director of Programs, Ollie Davidson agrees with Galaxy. Yet after so many years of working in a shelter environment, he says it is difficult to fight these stereotypes and says that as long as they are not taken too seriously, they can be a fun and lighthearted way to help people choose a cat. According to Davidson, it all comes down to the orange coloring “Most orange cats are friendly and laid back, torties and calicos have fun, independent, personalities and tend to be extra loyal to their one favorite person, but all the other cats such as tuxedos, blacks, brown tabbies, grey tabbies, solid greys, etc. are harder to define by color alone.” Not surprisingly, Ollie’s all-time; favorite cats, are orange tabbies and torties! It is interesting to note that Galaxy says he has not found tortoiseshell cats to be feistier than average, but he does believe they tend to be “more sensitive to the stimulus around them.”" Popish Plot (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have bookmarked the web page for this Humane Society. What a nice group!
Where the phrasing in this article went wrong before, I believe is in using the phrases "it is said" and "they are said to be" because the question is rightly asked: "Who specifically says?". Also, the many describing adjectives are wrong to use and it happens in so many of our cat articles: strong-willed, fiercely independent, hot-tempered . Here is a diff from Bicolor cat from a day or so ago removing the word 'handsome': <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicolor_cat&type=revision&diff=660496800&oldid=660495233>. I am not sure how one would add a reference from a television program. I once saw a discussion here on using a statement from a video or DVD, where someone wanted to use the exact time marker where the statement occurred. (No...) So be bold and add something with the best reference and make it read in a proper encyclopedic tone. I still agree that the "folklore" section is the best section. Fylbecatulous talk 23:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I would go by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources And some may ask who is saying something, then I was hoping it could say something like "According to Jackson Galaxy . . . " then paraphrase his quote. I suppose I can be bold and make the edit, maybe some consider him to not be notable or reliable or etc. I won't try to make a controversy and I know there is no deadline or any need to get upset about anything on wikipedia. I feel some wikipedians have a form of tortitude . . . but they wear spiderman costumes and climb the reichstag then. :) Popish Plot (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I was bold and made the edit. Now I am open to discussing it if any disagree. By the way, I also took this out of the folklore section: "The Japanese Maneki Neko figurine is almost always a calico cat." I took it out because this is the tortoiseshell cat page not the calico page. Maybe I am missing something as to why it was here though. I see outside of North America calico cats are often called "tortoiseshell and white". But this is still not called the "tortoiseshell and white cat" wiki page. Popish Plot (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The mention of the Japanese figurine still exists in the Calico cat article, so I believe that change is okay. What you added about the tortitude trait is straight-forward, factually written and not vague; it mentions two notables and backs it all up with sources. As well, you have stated that science debunks this, so I believe this is is a good addition. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't want to give the impression that science proves this, that's not the case and the source does say that too, all I did was paraphrase. Popish Plot (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)