Talk:Cat/Archive 9

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Mar 6 2005 to Aug 16 2005):
• Archive 2 (Aug 16 2005 to Nov 6 2005):

Cats in Islam

I do not see any source in any Hadith about the Prophet Muhammad and the cat. Also, Hurraira does not mean cat as stated in the article. It means reddish, or something red. So Abu Hurraira does not mean father of the cat. I don't want to remove it myself but if someone can find a source for anything in that paragraph. It is well documented that Muhammad advocated kind treatment towards animals, but that specific story seems untrue.Fkh82 02:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

cat breath

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think cats have really bad breath. Of couse, it's not that bad compared to dogs' breath. Scorpionman 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Breath odor of cats and also dogs has more to do with dental health than anything else. In most cases adult cats have significant tartar accumulation; owners can attempt to remedy this with special dental treats, by brushing their teeth (veterinarians sell feline toothbrushes and toothpaste) or by having a dental cleaning performed. --Bk0 (Talk) 05:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes - a problem

With the references at the end, there are 27 references, but in the text there are only 25. The problem occurs around number 16. I'm having a look into it. Thelb⁴ 07:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see: there were two in the references (numbers 16 and 17) that didn't link to anywhere in the article. I've taken them away, so it should work now. Thelb⁴ 07:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed note about lack of sources

I removed the following note, left by User:144.133.211.127 at [1], from Cat#Environmental effects: It should be noted that this article has no proof or reference to published papers to support its allegations. There is no inclusion of an opposing view.

Presumably this means that the section about cats and the environment has no sources given, since the article as a whole has plenty. Anyway, notes like this belong on the talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, it would be great if someone did come up with a source for the material on environmental effects. And opposing viewpoints are welcome if presented constructively. FreplySpang (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article titled “Environmental effects” makes some outrageous allegations without any supporting proof other than the reference to “Some environmentalists claim”.

You have said “…the article as a whole has plenty (of sources)”. I would be pleased if you would point out any proof that predation is destroying nature. Proof would need to be published scientific papers.--WikiCats 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here. You put in a sentence that says "this article has no proof or reference..." without specifying that you meant the part about predation. The article has lots of references to subjects other than predation. FreplySpang (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The whole article “Environmental effects” is about predation by cats and the allegation that cats are a threat to the environment. In essence, the allegation is that predation within nature destroys nature. This is a very brash assertion and you really need to be able to back it up with published papers. Thank you for assisting with this issue.--WikiCats 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Usually we use "article" to mean the entire Wikipedia page Cat, and "section" to mean a smaller part like Cat#Environmental effects. I stepped in to handle the procedural issue - discussion about an article goes on the talk page, not in the article. I personally don't know much about the predation issue. Since it appears to be the subject of debate, I'll move the paragraph here to the talk page and let people discuss it here. FreplySpang (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This my second day at this.--WikiCats 10:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

your cat page

show a pic of your cat and there name heres my cat File:Ourkitty4.jpg

Environmental effects

I've removed the controversial section "Environmental effects" so that it can be discussed here. The text is as follows:

Some environmentalists claim that the domestication of cats is harmful to the environment or ecosystems, and that excessive cat populations result in the overhunting of many small animals and birds in both urban and rural areas, possibly disrupting the food chain and limiting local species' populations. This is clearly true in environments where cats did not exist, and were imported, such as Australia and New Zealand, where feral cats now kill native bird species and damage natural flora.

Throughout the centuries, as humans took advantage of the domestic cat's hunting skills, few had regard for their habitat and care, and far fewer thought to practice good animal husbandry. This created many pockets of excessive populations and local imbalances. However, with intervention and management, most especially spay and neuter programs, the disruptions and chaos in both the feline's life cycle and its prey can easily be avoided, and the positive effects these small and vital predators have in the appropriate environments can be observed and appreciated.

I do not intend to be part of the debate, only to encourage the opposing sides to provide sources and reach consensus on what this section should say. FreplySpang (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m happy to kick this off. It might be best to have a title that better covers divergent opinions. I would like to suggest “Environmental Issues”

I am an Australian and I have been examining this argument for a number of years. Essentially the proposal is that domestic cats and wild cats threaten the existence of or have caused the extinction of other animals. This allegation has been made for about 13 years now. Prior to that, it was not heard of.

The suggestion is that predation is destroying nature. This is a bold proposal since it is generally accepted that predation is a vital part of nature. (Predation helps to prevent over population of prey species and controls the spread of disease) They would need to show that predation by cats goes beyond it beneficial effects. They would need to show that cats are killing at a rate that exceeds prey species ability to reproduce.

In researching this issue, other than theories, I have not been able to find published studies that support this allegation. e.g. Researcher Frankie Seymour says “Those few papers and studies which speculate that cats might be a threat to the Australian ecosystem present no evidence in support of this speculation.” http://www.animalsaustralia.org/default2.asp?idL1=1274&idL2=1310

Be that as it may, I believe that Wikipedia should reflect both sides of the argument.

I would be happy to re-write this section for the consideration of others. --WikiCats 11:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

archiving

I archived the page again, keeping the last five sections. The page was very long - 68 KB! When I copied into Microsoft Word for archiving, it was 24 pages long! Thelb⁴ 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)