Talk:Manx (cat)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia but not to the Manx breed cat. I'm a professional Manx cat breeder with cats that have Regional and National level wins. I am not trying to promote my cattery or sell cats, only promoting I'm doing is for my breed in an honest, accurate manner. When I posted my article on the breed I intended to make sure my breed of choice (which I have put nine years of my life into) is not misrepresented by some of the things you have posted. There is NO SUCH THING as Manx Syndrome!!!!! Manx cats are not the unhealthy cats you portray them as being in your article!!! In the nine years I've been breeding the registered Manx cat, I have only ever experienced ONE thing you claim they can have (bowel incontinence). That was in a Father/Daughter breeding which in itself could have been the problem and was not repeated. Manx cats tails DO NOT have to be docked!!! I've left their tails on for years with no ill effects to date as have other breeders. I think before you remove my posting for yours next time you might want to read what I have posted and research this breed better, who would know more about the breed than a breeder? Are you a registered Manx cat breeder or a cat owner? I have not posted a long article on the breed, there is room for you to add something to it, however I hope we can both agree on it if you intend to post things about this breed and there should be some way of you verifying the information your posting.

Contents

EliasAlucard's response

Look, that old article wasn't mine. I had just added some extra stuff into it. It is very clear that you are a n00b here on Wikipedia. Before editing, I think you should read the edit rules more. Why? Because you are removing vital parts of the article, like inter-wikilinks and other useful stuff. If you check the history of the article (click here), you'll notice that I didn't start the article; many people before me wrote it up. I am very sure that all of us together know more than you do. As much as the breed Manx has improved in the health department, it is a known fact that this breed CAN have major issues as a direct result of the Manx syndrome. You want verification? Check this FAQ and search for syndrome... by not knowing this, I highly question your skills as a Manx breeder. Or could it be because you want to sell more of the breed and glorify it because of that by removing the negative parts? That's in opposition to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. It doesn't matter if you've bred the race for centuries, not knowing this makes you a n00b here as well, because this is a very, VERY common knowledge a Manx breeder MUST have; it's mandatory because the kittens/offspring might suffer severe problems if bred inaccurate or with two tailless parents. I did not portray them as unhealthy cats, the editors before me did, and it is true that they can be very unhealthy. The breed is known for having been created by inbreeding due to the lack of cats on Isle of Man. This is why the race is tailless. Ever bred two siblings of any cat breed? It is very common to get one or more tailless kittens as a result of this.

Pictures, links etc

If you want to add your pictures and links, that's fine. Just don't remove everything else. They're there for a good reason. In my opinion, you've made this article way inferior.

Also, when you edit, use the show preview button, because saving every little change you do overloads wikipedia with redundant and superfluous article history, if everyone did like this, wikipedia wouldn't exist due to server malfunction.

By the way, for what it's worth, I am an owner of the breed, two siblings, and I've done my homework on the race. My Manx kittens aren't registered, and frankly, that doesn't mean shit because it's a cheap shot of milking money out of cat owners.

Karello's Reply

I understand the article was not written by you to begin with. However, it seems you think you've taken over "ownership" of it and it's inaccuracies by demanding they continue to be posted. By not correcting information contained within that was not accurate your given people who visit this site the wrong impression of this breed. I salute you for allowing a more positive, accurate portrayal of the breed I've posted to remain listed this last time. I know all the breeders who wrote the Manx Breed FAQS site and do not believe they would want such negative, incorrect information posted about our breed. I do not know Karen Johnson the first to publish the information about the Manx breed cat here or any of the others but can assure you they are not Manx breeders and can not back up what Karen published with the knowledge I have of this breed through working with it. I highly doubtany of you know as much as I and my fellow Manx breeders know with over 40 years of breeding experience so don't go there! Since there is no such thing as Manx Syndrome and you refuse to accept this with your comment of "it is a known fact that this breed CAN have major issues as a direct result of the Manx syndrome." I have added an external link to a very experienced Manx breeders comments on Manx Syndrome for you to read all about it yourself. Hopefully, you'll take Sherman Ross's word on this if you won't mine! As for the Cat Fanciers The Manx: Cat Breed FAQS you wanted me to look up, only two of the site owners are still breeding Manx cats. One of which was my mentor when I started breeding Manx, nine years ago. To the best of my knowledge, that site has not been updated since 1995 as stated, the information contained there in is not up to date with current Manx FAQs or completely accurate. By not knowing this it is you who should be questioning your own knowledge of the breed instead of me. If you think I'm correcting misinformation about the Manx breed and I must defend myself for being a Manx breeder feel free to look up my website at http://www.karellomanx.com/availablekittens.html and read about my philosiphies concerning my breeding practice. You'll be SHOCKED to learn I'm not the kind of breeder you portray me to be. In fact, perhaps my accomplishments listed on my site might serve to prove I do know what I'm doing and have been VERY successful at it. More so than some others who have experiences the horrible things mentioned in the prior article about this breed. I and other Manx breeders I work with have breed two tailless parents to each other without having any of the horrible health issues you speak of happening. I don't know who's the n00b but I think when it comes to breding the registered Manx cat you are! The Manx breed is not tailless because of inbreeding, it is tailless due to a genetic mutation. How it was introduced to the ISle of Man no one knows of course but it was introduced not through inbreeding. Inbreeding only served to concentrate the amount of cats having the genetic mutation on the Island. I do not breed siblings together and can not say if it were done one or more tailless kittens would be the result. I'm a professional Manx cat breeder I work only with registered stock that has known decendants from the Isle of Man and are true, purebred Manx cats not some cheap shot of milking money out of people there IS a difference.

What is a "Domestic Tailless" cat?

"If short hair cats with unknown ancestors are referred to as being "domestic short hairs" and long hair cats with unknown ancestors are referred to as being "domestic long hairs", common sense says people should refer to cats who are born tailless or short tailed with unknown ancestors as being "domestic tailless"? There is a difference between the registered Manx cat and a domestic tailless cat. To some it doesn't matter all they're looking for is any cat without a tail and that's fine, but for those who would like to know the difference and own a quality bred Manx I've provided an explanation.

PLEASE NOTE: The genetic mutation that causes the registered Manx cat to be born without a tail can happen in "any cat". This happening in "any cat" does not then make the off spring of "any cat" born without a tail a Manx breed cat. Those tailless off spring of "any cat" are what should more correctly be referred to as "domestic tailless" cats. Domestic tailless cats descendants are usually unknown and cannot be traced like that of the registered Manx cats who originated on the Isle of Man, (thus the name). Sounds to me like your just a back yard breeder with domestic tailless cats and have no clue about the true Manx cat breed.

P.S.

Don't tell me what I can and can not post to this page, I have the knowledge to provide true, accurate facts about this breed. I did not post everything I know about the breed to be fair to others who would like to add to my information. I realize there are two sides to this story but speak from my own experience and truthfully. I do not have any problems with my Manx having health issues due to thier mutation or problems breeding rumpy to rumpy why should I mention it, that's NEUTRAL.

EliasAlucard's second reply

I'm not posting inaccuracies, you are. Check this, how many sites do I need to show you? I don't care about your self-proclaimed omniscience about this breed. I trust all these sites more than you. I quote:

"The reason for the missing tail is due to a dominant mutant gene that appeared in the animal a long time ago due to the breed's confinement on the Isle of Man that also led to its concentrated in-breeding. The mutant gene caused a spinal malformation that spread throughout the cat community resulting in the loss of the animal's tail."

And this is from The Manx Cat Breed FAQ: "The tailless gene, a dominant gene, is lethal when breeding rumpies to each other into or beyond the third generation. The breeder continues to use tailed cats in the breeding program to insure strong kittens and to reduce the possibility of genetic deformity."

That's what the Australian Whiskas site says. I've read the very same information on EVERY OTHER MANX SITE I'VE CHECKED. Frankly, I don't care about what your site says, and I'm not even going to bother myself with looking. Why? Because it's partial to your opinions about the race, not facts. I trust these cat corporation sites a lot more; they if anyone should know anything about cats more than some according to herself cat-omniscient breeder. If anyone has taken over the site, then it sure is you. This is the Swedish Royal Canine site. Even this site backs up what I say. I'm sure you can't read Swedish, but ask anyone at Swedish wikipedia about this link. Royal Canine knows more than you.

Registered Cats

Oh yeah, I've read that part about registered cats before. It's stupid, seriously. If I have a Tiger/Lion/Cheetah or whatever and they're not registered, that doesn't make them less of actual breeds of the large felidae family that they already are part of. Sure, the idea of tracing a cat to its ancestors is a good one, but come on, acknowledge it... this entire registered cat thing is just a reason to sell one cat for $500 and higher.

P.S.

I couldn't restrain myself, I actually had a peek on your site. I found this: "Manx cats are like potato chips you can't have only one!" How can I take your site seriously if I find stuff like that? Also, when you end your messages here on the talk panel, do it with this because it's very important for others that might join the coversation, so they can know who wrote what:

my take

ok, first off, you are both fairly new to wikipedia. you have both asked different outside people for help, maybe you should take the problem to the mediation committee. this whole things seems to stem from whether or not manx syndrome exists, and if it is still prevelant in the breed. from what i've read, yes, it exists, but no, it's not as common as it once was. just let the article say that. i'm not terribly good at dispute resolution, so the MC is probably a good idea if you can't sort it out yourselves. on a side note, i removed the link to your site, Karello, because linking to a breeder's site is considered advertisement and is not allowed. i also changed the description of the manx syndrome link to more closely resemble the name of the page. and, Karello, please do sign your comments with ~~~~, it makes it easier for everyone involved. Lachatdelarue (talk) 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Karello's second reply to The JPS

I think it's nice you've made a compromise with all the infromation that has been posted about the Manx breed however in removing most of what I've posted think there are a few things need to be edited. For example, cat registry orginazations do not describe the Manx breed cat as having a semi-hunched appearence. The description I entered is more correct "having a continuous arch from shoulders to rump giving the cat a rounded appearance." I'm checking with other breeders to see if the statement "It is very normal for cats to be tailless or have a shorter tail than usual when exposed to inbreeding, regardless of the race" is correct, I'll get back to you on this one, I don't breed anything except registered Manx cats. The word 'MANX' is plural like the words fish and deer it does not have "es" at the end of it this is improper grammar. Most Manx are not completely tailless, they are best KNOWN as being a tailless cat however, the ratio of taillessness can not be pin pointed, the taillessness is not what make them Manx breed cats. You have one part of the article stating Manx that are born with tails are docked and the next part stating what I said, Manx tails are not docked anymore, especially outside the US. In the "stumpy calico Manx" picture the calico cat says it's a tortie cat when you mouse over the word calico. A tortie colored cat does NOT have that much white on it in ANY cat registry!! A calico is a white cat with black and red patches I made that correction but EliasAlucard changed it back. If you want the article to have correct statements and insist on removing things I'm knowledgable about then PLEASE go to http://www.cfainc.org and look up this information yourselves. The Cat Fanciers' Association is the World's Largest Registry of Pedigreed cats (they say so on their page) I think they should know what a Manx cat's body, color and coat should look like is it that hard to refer to their description and remove the incorrect infromation from this article? I tried adding to this article more accurate information as a breeder I know to be correct however it keeps getting changed. If you won't believe my knowledge about this breed as a breeder then take theirs! The Bengal and Ocicats are VERY active cats, the Manx cat is not an active cat this statement is incorrect and give the reader the wrong impression about this breed. I'll stop here because as I go down the page there is information I've never came across or experienced in all the nine years I've been breeding and dealing with pedigreed manx cats! PS Just so you know, my cattery information was posted to the site as a soruce of my knowledge about the breed not to promote my site.

Hope this works...

Karello 22:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) forgot to identify myself in the prior post, hope this works!

i did some work...

I did some work on the article, trying to make it more neutral and accurate. Some of things that have been mentioned as 'inaccurate' I left alone, because I don't know enough about the topic. The one thing that I know still needs to be done is the "Other Characteristics" section needs to be merged into other areas of the article, since much of it is repeat info, albeit in more detail. Also, references to calico cats link to tortoishell cat for a reason. The issue was discussed on the Tortoisehll cat and the Cat articles. Lachatdelarue (talk) 23:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EliasAlucard's third reply

I've made some more cleaning. Seriously Karello, stop removing calico/tabby links. They're there for a good reason, because if you check those inter wikilinks, they bring up the very subject that is linked from the Manx article. This is why I and everyone else are keep adding them back. So stop. Also, there are no such articles as those links you changed to, and probably won't be.

Manx Syndrome

Oh yeah, the Manx Syndrome, look, it doesn't matter how much you love this race and want it to be free of diseases/whatever, this syndrome exists. Check this Google search for proof. As much as it is a hard fact for you to accept, you must accept it. It's no bogus, that's for sure. I don't know why you got so much problem with doing so, could it be that customers are complaining about the disease after reading about it here on this very article? Also, I'm not in any way a Manx breeder, I just own two Manx kittens. And that's another thing; you might have bred many Manx cats, but even so, all of the Manx cats you've bred, that doesn't sum up the entire breed and everything known about it. If you don't recognize some of the aspects/traits that this breed has, that doesn't change the entire breed to something beyond Manx. Your conception of this cat breed isn't the universal standard of how a Manx should be in every single way. Cats are like humans; all of them are unique in their own way, in both behaviour and appearance.

Bengal/Ocicat issue

I did NOT write that Manx were equally active. The similar aspects are for instance, high intelligence, that they like water et cetera. Also, Manx cats chase each other like crazy. My two does all the time, and that, if anything is activeness. Also, The Manx Breeder FAQ confirms this. But hey, we don't know anything, since it's not unanimous with your conceptions, right? Please, be realistic. Just to be on the safe side, I'll quote it verbatim from this FAQ: "It is rare for a Manx to "play" on the judging table however much they might chase toys and race about in your home." And "They do like to chase each other, so hearing the thunder of furry feet is usually the disturbance the Manx owner is used to." I completely agree with these two statements since I've had to put up with this nuisance for over six months now.

P.S.

I've organized the pictures to the best of my ability to fit in to the context of the content. I've also added another picture.

Ever hear of Japanese Bobtails?

EliasAlucard, before you go any further posting your experiences and basing your knowledge of the Manx breed cat on your two domestic tailless cats I think you need to do a reality check. You can't in all fairness and honesty compare the actual Manx breed cat that originated on the Isle of Man to the tailless cats you own. You can't say for certain like a registered Manx breeder can they are actually true Manx cats with known ancestors from the Isle of Man, not based on them being tailless and "looking" like the breed. Again, I say the genetic mutation that happens in the Manx breed cat to make them tailless can happen in ANY CAT/ANY CAT, this does NOT make them Manx breed cats then. Only having descendants from the Isle of Man does. Many registered Manx and Manx on the Isle of Man look nothing like known Manx cats look like, they have long bodies and full tails however they ARE Manx cats still because their parents are known to be from the Isle of Man. In looking at the pictures of the cats you've posted (I admit I'm not an authority on everything but think I know a little more about the purebred Manx cat than those who don't breed it) your cats are semi-tailless cats with kinked, stumpy tails. It is certainly possible that your cats don't have ancestors from the Isle of Man at all behind them, just carry the same genetic mutation the Isle of Man cats have! My guess (and again I'm no authority here) is they are more likely to have Japanese Bobtail behind them than Manx, since Japanese Bobtails are best known for having stumpy tails with kinks in them! That's not to say Manx kittens tails haven't have kinks although, I've never seen it in mine still doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The short, kinked tail is one of the traits that distinguish the Manx from the JBT's in many cat registries around the world. JBT's also have higher hind legs in the back than in the front like the Manx due to their mutation but still they're not Manx cats two completely different breeds of cat.

If I were you, I'd investigate the Japanese Bobtail breed. http://cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/japanese.html Many domestic tailless cat owners, vets and shelters have blamed the Manx breed for semi/tailless cats when in fact they were not actually Manx cats at all, most are just domestic tailless cats and have no link to the Isle of Man at all. If for instance, you have black hair, brown eyes and olive skin and "look" Italian, (nothing against Italians I have Italian ancestors in my blood) this does NOT actually in itself make you Italian UNLESS you have the ancestry in your blood from Italy.

It is my sincere wish to educate others about the true Manx breed cat and not allow them to be decieved or mislead by people who are trying to make a fast buck. I hope I'm accomplishing that in all that I do with this breed and my posts. Maybe others reading these pages will learn and come to understand there is a difference between any tailless cat and a true Manx breed cat and it's NOT based on a "look". Accept no immitations!!! The Manx breed cat is simply a cat that is from the Isle of Man, that is in fact what makes them Manx cats, not being tailless or "looking" a particular way no matter what they're KNOWN for looking like!!!

Karello 14:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

enough

The article is factually accurate, as far as i can determine. if you two still feel the need to argue points that don't pertain to this specific article, i.e. Elias's cats ancestry, please take it to private emails. the talk page of an article is not the place for it. you have both broken the no personal attacks policy during the course of your discussions. please take it elsewhere. You both have made good additions to this article, and i hope you continue to work on wikipedia. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YES! Enough!

Hey Karello, mail me if you want at eliasmaycry AT gmail DOT com and we can discuss this further. By the way, it's not a kink, she's just bending her tail, and that makes it appear as a kink, I can send you more pictures. And no, they're definitely not Japanese Bob-Tail cats; their mother was completely tailless, and so was one of their siblings. JBT cannot be tailless ;) I quote from the link you gave me: "Kittens are never born tailless, nor are they born with full tails." Her brother has a complete tail. Anyway, mail me.

Grow Up!

You've been told to stop what your doing, this discussion page is better served providing valuable information to those who are looking to find information about this breed not your childishness. Don't post anything for me again here or elsewhere I will not reply!

Karello 17:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

We need to get this straight

I decreased the size of your picture of that judge. Why? Because all other pictures are of that size. Why should that certain picture be larger? Also, the Manx syndrome part, it's a subsection that should be under Health. That's why it should have three = instead of two. And as for inbreeding, any cat can have a shortened tail as a direct result of inbreeding; they don't need to carry the Manx gene for that. Inbreeding is crazy, anything can happen, after all, the Manx cat got this through inbreeding, the Manx gene is a result of it. Trust me on this, I've had two cats that had shorter tails because of inbreeding and they didn't have anything to do with Manx. One more thing about pictures, you need to be on the safe side with the copyright part, you can't just upload them without permission. You sure that judge allows you to put the picture here? Maybe she doesn't want her face on Wikipedia. You never know, ask her. Oh and if anyone needs to grow up, then it's you; running to others and crying over your edits is just so immature. Don't you think the previous editors before you are a little pissed for you removing everything they wrote and just replaced it with your version of the entire story? That's like a waste of effort for them because you removed every single second they worked on the article. Everyone here share a consensus that the Manx syndrome exists, except you. I got Whiskas, Royal Canine, fanciers.com and tons of other sites/huge cat corporations backing this up. But hey, you know more right, since after all, you've bred the breed for nine years. We're all wrong. Please, accept for once that you can be wrong here. One last thing, before you run around to other people begging them to punish me, consider who it is that needs to be punished. I've done a lot more than you here on Wikipedia, although I am fairly new too in comparison with others. Very seldom have people changed what I've been adding to other articles. If anyone thinks he/she owns this article, then it's you for removing everything and making your own version of it. I'm just trying to preserve the integrity it had before you came waltzing in here and changed everything. And mind you, I had barely written anything on it before that, so I can pretty much say in an impartial and unbiased way that it was better before.

P.S.

Felidae under see also is good, if the other cat breeds don't have it, then they should in my opinion. People in general don't know what felidae is. One last thing, I know more about my own cats than you do. You haven't seen 'em. I know they're Manx. Even if they aren't 100% Manx (such a thing doesn't exist by the way), they most definitely do carry a lot of Manx genetics.

Talk here

Look, your tabby picture has a higher resolution than the others because it's in the breed table. Stop posting on Lachatdelarue's talk page about this article, if you've got something to discuss, say it here on the Manx talk page where it belongs. Lachatdelarue isn't responsible for everything concerning this article and I think you should stop overloading him with tasks; the man has a life. Also, that judge picture is redundant if anything. Please tell me what it shows that is of any importance to the breed Manx? Acknowledge it, you're just proud that your Manx cat won some competition and want to show off; no one cares. You can barely see the cat, the picture is of very tiny resolution, an old lady no one cares about isn't of any importance to the article. It shows more of her than the actual cat. Is the article about her or the cat? She didn't create the breed in any way, no matter how many Manx cats she has judged back and forth. I don't own the article, I don't think I own it either. If anyone does, then it's you; you've done more edits on it than anyone else. You've removed most of the parts everyone else had written. That is what I call "ownage". And why remove felidae from see also just because other cat breed articles don't have it? Do you believe that they are complete? No article here is complete. Even if YOU of all people know what felidae is, not everyone does. People that don't have English as their native language don't know what felines are, let alone felidae. Also, what you consider inaccuracies, doesn't necessarily make it inaccurate. You stated that the Manx syndrome doesn't exist, whilst a bunch of other cat sites allege that it does. I take their word any day over yours, and that just proves how much knowledge you've got about this breed (or lack thereof). I don't care if you're a breeder. I don't care how many years you've put into your life to this breed. Here on Wikipedia, you're just a member that should use very good sources. Using a source like "I'VE BRED THIS BREED FOR NINE YEARS, I KNOW ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS BREED!" etc, isn't a confirmable source. I can make up lies (not saying that you are) about how long I've bred cats, and that I am a scientist of animals etc. The sources I've brought from huge cat sites render your statements about Manx syndrome completely inaccurate. And this site as an accredited source is higly questionable; they're Manx breeders, they are most likely biased/partial toward the breed because they probably love it. I trust impartial cat sites that don't have anything to do with the breed except making food for it more than them. I don't need to breed cats in order to have knowledge about the species, I don't even need to own this cat breed, (pure-breed or not), all I need to do is to read from credible sources like Whiskas.com, so stop feeling superior.

P.S. If you're going to whine about someone removing/changing your edits on this article, think of what you've done to all the previous edits.

As an impartial outsider to this: I don't like the picture of the judge. As important as I'm sure she's considered by enthusiasts, she's simply not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please consider replacing this image with one where a Manx dominates. The JPS 13:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The JPS, thank you. I hope you don't mind me moving your last post down a little, it's just for fitting the order of this talk page. I personally don't have anything against Karello's pictures. Some of them can be very good, and I've checked her site. If she has any good pictures (and she does), then I think she should use one of those. But seriously, this judge picture, that's what I've been saying, it's not a good picture, or at least not eligible for an encyclopedia. It would be wrong of me to say that she has only made this article worse, no, she hasn't. Thanks to her, this article has been improving and been on the move. But to say that she has only made it better would be a lie in my opinion. Some things better left untouched, because they were good already; ain't broke, don't fix it, you know? I offered her another way to solve this, because I think this is too time-consuming by doing it here... but she basically spat in my face. What am I supposed to do? Also, I don't think it's cool to come with arguments like "I'm a breeder, I know more than you!" etc... sure, in some aspects, she very well might do that. But it's an insult to me and everyone else working on this article. We've got brains too, we can catch up and learn very fast on something we don't know anything about thanks to modern technology like Internet. Also, the breed table picture is good, but it needs to be cropped a little on the borders for better fitting to the breed table, and it would be very good if she could GFDL it, so it can be more distributed. I've GFDL'ed mine.

I'm going to agree with JPS on this, but I would also like to see the both of you calm down a bit. Neither of you are being particularly civil to one another and discussing each others personal traits is clearly not moving this issue forward. Try to stick to just the facts of the matter and try don't dwell on who said what.
Karello, how about replacing the picture of the judge holding the cat with one that features mainly a cat? I'm sure you could pick another pictures that would be more suitable for this article. Peter Isotalo 22:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Best without the "judge" pic (and remember Wikipedia:Civility). — Matt Crypto 22:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll do my best to behave from now on, that's a promise.

Comments

Eliass do not address me, I will not reply as I have stated in prior posts. It's obvious we're on two different levels when it comes to the Manx cat and ones knowledge of it, mine is based on the registered breed and yours is not.

To The JPS, Peter Isotalo and Matt Crypto who commented about the picture I posted. It's a very sad day when a picture of one of the oldest living Manx breeders known, judging a perfect example of the Manx is not worthy of being posted in this encyclopedia to represent the breed, herself, the breeder and The Cat Fanciers' Association. She's notable enough to have bred and judged registered Manx cats for more than 40 years, bred more than 35 Grand Champion Manx, be shown on the television show "The Animal Planet", written and assisted writing the breed standard for The Cat Fanciers Association (which is the world's largest cat registy), provided articles for magazines and books on the breed ( I could go on and on on her accomplishments with the Manx) yet isn't worthy to be listed on this site, what standards are you going by here? If people truly do not know anything about this breed as has been stated, what basis do they then have to edit and monitor it's content as to what is acceptable and what is not accurate? Makes one wonder if they don't know what is truth and what is not. I would be more than happy to replace the picture in question ( I have better pictures of Barbara judging my Manx that are higher resolution and show more of the cat like you've suggested) however, I don't think this is about another picture. It's about not allowing registered breeders the chance to teach others the truth that any tailless cat can not be considered a Manx cat. I think you should also know, although I was asked to post a new picture it's already been replaced...guess who! Hint: not me! Are you now saying that I should go replace that picture with mine, where does this end? What's the sense of everyone offering their opinions if what they suggest is not given the chance to be followed through? Who's job is it to make sure what's being posted is accurate and to block or stop people from doing as they were not told to do anyway?

As to those who admit they don't know enough about this breed to know what is and isn't correct, now's your chance to learn if you truly wish to. To learn more about the Manx breed cat from someone who has also been a long time breeder for 25 years, has a BS Eng.Phy., MS Ed, is President of the American Manx Club, technical consultant to Karen Commings for Manx Cats: (Complete Pet Owners Manual), (Barons, 1999) and Joanne Mattern for The Manx Cat, (Capstone Press, 2003, as well as being highly respected by Manx breeders and considered an authority on this breed, get in touch with Sherman Ross. His email address is openly displayed on the American Manx Club site. (tahame@juno.com) I'm sure Sherman would be more than happy to speak to anyone about this breed, address their questions and put to rest the MTYH of Manx Syndrome and other genetic stories about this breed that are incorrect. I'm not concerned about letting people know the Manx breed has genetic limitations, I have warnings about it on my website as well. Reputable breeders would never try to hide, cover up or decieve potential owners from the facts. However, I am very passionate about people knowing the "term" Manx Syndrome is just that, a "term". It is what is used by some as a description for illnesses seen by some in the Manx breed cat. However, the illnesses that are covered by the "term" happen in other breeds of animals as well as humans such as spina bifida, incontinence and rectal prolaspe, they're not only seen in the Manx breed. Therefore, those who use it are misrepresenting the "term" and breed. Also, stating "inbreeding causes shortened tails", is not accurate. Sherman tells me if this were true every registered breed of cat would produce some foreshortened tails. When was the last time you saw a bobtailed Persian, Korat, Occicat, etc? Here's where I'll end my comments, I've given those reading this discussion page enough to think over for now, do get in touch with Sherman he's a wonderful human being, loves the Manx breed and is just as passionate about it as I am.

Karello 06:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The point is, Karello, that we all must keep a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am not questioning her knowledge and expertise. However, there are many people in the world with knowledge and expertise. Although many of my colleagues have published academic work and are very well known and respected within their fields, they are not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. As much as an authority they are considered within their field, no one cares outside of it. That is what the rest of the internet is for.
I actually don't even care about Manx cats. Although wikipedia usually provides a good source for things I haven't even considered learning about, you and Elias build walls of texts that are very difficult to read. Consider using paragraphs more (I see you are beginning to do so!). Taking a break away from your PC before you hit reply is also a useful tactic.
The JPS 07:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For starters, I will not contact him (that expert you mentioned) for the reasons I've previously stated why (I suspect him of bias toward Manx because, as you just put it, he loves the breed). I don't know about the rest of the crowd here though. Second, you just said that fanciers.com is the largest cat registry, yet you oppose what it says on other aspects like Manx syndrome and you claim that their Manx article is out of date. Sounds like a glaring contradiction to me. Third, I've had two cats that were born out of inbreeding. They didn't have anything to do with Manx, Japanese Bobtail cats or whatever. One of them had a short tail, and one of their siblings which wasn't mine was completely tailless. This happens with inbreeding. There are cats even born without skeleton as a direct result of exposure to inbreeding. Like I've said before: "inbreeding is crazy; anything can happen." I kid you not. Fourth, that old lady didn't fit with the picture here, everyone agreed. Want to perpetuate her history to mankind of everything she has done? Then I suggest you start her own article since she seems to be a cat celebrity, if she's so worthy of it. I doubt anyone would ever read it and care though. Case in point: we can't just fill wikipedia with everything that has a vague connection to the article; that would make the articles very-so-not-interesting to read. There has to be a touch of quality. Fifth, it might be a big issue for you to have registered Manx, it's nothing special to me though. I see cats as cats, registered/pure-breed or not. That is all. Last but not least, don't reply, you're reading anyway and that means I'm somehow reaching you. By the way, why is it so important for you to liquidate the "term" Manx syndrome? Clearly, it exists because the word is found almost everywhere where the breed Manx is mentioned; just search Google for Manx syndrome and you'll see.

Resolution

Both of your quests for accuracy are being lost in a barrage of personal insults and self promotion of knowledge and experience. Please now do the following. List each dispute within subsections and each briefly write your take on it and internet sources to support you.

====Fact in dispute here, written neutrally====

:Karello or Elias' version in one or two succinct sentences maximum. List a maximum of three verifiable sources (ideally from the www) to support your claim. And sign and date them. ~~~~

:The opposing view in one or two succinct sentences maximum. List a maximum of three verifiable sources (ideally from the www) to support your claim. And sign and date them. ~~~~

Rules

  • Keep it away from the personal. You have both asserted your experiences and knowledge. Move on.
  • Keep it short and near to the form you want it to be in the article.

The JPS 08:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manx Syndrome

Elias: The threat of Manx Syndrome still exists [1] [2] [3].

Karello: Don't disagree that Manx has genetic limitations, do disagree with them being called Manx Syndrome. All conditions commonly referred to by Manx Syndrome occur in other animals and humans and can't be linked to the Manx gene specifically or accurately named Manx Syndrome. [4] [5] [6] [7] Karello 07:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

These four links are NOT about Manx. Therefore, they don't count. They don't even mention the breed Manx or the problem the breed has. Either way, find a cat site that says it isn't called Manx syndrome in the case of Manx cats to back up your statement, and without this site, or just accept yourself of being wrong here.
EliasAlucard|Talk 09:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Verdict: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We have to reflect existing human knowledge, not mould it. The fact is that that there is a syndrome called Manx Syndrome. It seems to me that Karello is disagreeing with the term itself, and would like wikipedia to promote those views? The JPS 12:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section. Please indicate below whether or not you are happy with the present section about Manx Syndrome in relation to wipedia policy (i.e. reflecting knowledge, not enforcing a strand of it). The JPS 14:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manx stumpy kinked tail

Elias: Short quote: "Stumpy Manx have between 1 & 6 tail vertebrae. This is usually straight, but can sometimes be kinked or even curled in a bobtail like fashion." Although this is on Manx rats, the very same thing can happen with Manx cats. [8]
Another short quote in case you don't find the statement: "but it may be a Manx-type mutation since some lines produce a range of tailless, rumpy, stumpy, longy and kink-tail cats." [9].

Karello: Not disputing stumpy tailless cats with kinks in their tails, [although] I've never had this in my registered Manx.

Verdict: Manx cats sometimes have kinks in their tails. The JPS 12:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inbreeding can make any cat tailless and created Manx

Elias: Short quote: In cats natural isolation and inbreeding have given rise to domestic breeds such as the Manx which developed on an island so that the gene for taillessness became widespread despite the problems associated with it. [10]. Another short quote: "The reason for the missing tail is due to a dominant mutant gene that appeared in the animal a long time ago due to the breed's confinement on the Isle of Man that also led to its concentrated in-breeding. The mutant gene caused a spinal malformation that spread throughout the cat community resulting in the loss of the animal's tail." [11] Short quote again: "There is little doubt that the isolation of the island allowed the tail-less trait to be perpetuated but the tail-less-ness is the result of a genetic mutation possibly caused by inbreeding British Shorthairs." [12] Quote: "The Manx was easily established due to the genetic nature of the tailless trait and centuries of inbreeding in an isolated island environment." [13] Quote: "The Manx is the result of spontaneous mutation, which occurred hundreds of years ago. This mutation caused kittens to be born without the vertebrae which forms a normal cat tail. The isolation of the cats on an island meant years of inbreeding which produced dominate gene traits, which now appear in the "Manx Cat"." [14]

Karello: Inbreeding in itself does not cause tailless or shortened tails, the gene which causes shortened or tailessness is a spontainous mutation and is already present in that animals genetic make up when it reproduces. Otherwise, ALL animals who are inbred and have small gene pools such as registered animals who do not allow outcrosses would be born tailless or have shortened tails. [15] [16] [17] [18]

Seriously Karello, Once again, these links don't have anything to do with Manx, and they don't backup your statement. I mean, where do any of these link say that inbreeding cannot under any circumstances cause taillessnes? The funny thing is you posted my link.
EliasAlucard|Talk 18:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've already addressed your dispute and provided facts as instructed. Ever see a horse, dog or cow born without a tail, they've been inbred? Here's some Manx information, when two tailed Manx are bred the result is tailed kittens, inbred and not. Pedigreed cats have been inbred for years and still are, still they do not have kittens born without or with only half tails.
Seems to me your having trouble following "the rules" again. Dispute addressed, I don't have to justify my answers to you. Karello 12:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Cows are not cats. They are two completely different species. You can't make such a comparison. Inbreeding doesn't affect them in the same way. By the way, stop pointing to the rules, I see what you're doing here, you're just trying to get me banned for "violating the rules." I'm not being hostile in any way, just pointing out the obvious: these links are not backing up your statement. Once again, accept yourself of being wrong.
EliasAlucard|Talk 15:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Verdict: It doesn't seem that inbreeding can make any cat tailess. The gene is more important. Elias, your first quotation suggests that inbreeding reated Manx, but the sentence is poorly structured. The second quotation ("The reason for the missing tail...") is also ambiguous. They are giving prominence to the gene rather than inbreeding, as if inbreeding has resulted from genetic mutation. I think it's too ambiguous and peripheral, and it would be better to leave it out of the article. The JPS 19:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next dispute here

Karello: [Follow the format and write your version here.]
Elias: [Follow the format and write your version here.]
Verdict: [Follow the format and write the verdict here.]

All Ball

I don't think "All Ball" really qualifies as a nickname for the Manx. It was the name of one famous Manx. Unless it's commonly used to refer to all Manx, it shouldn't be in the Nicknames section, though All Ball does deserve a place in the See Also section. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't the best place to put it. I'll change it right away.

End of dispute

I'm guessing that Karello doesn't want to write more on this article, or that she just doesn't care anymore. Because she has not answered yet on the dispute resolution. Well, if that's the case (and I hope it is, because I don't want to continue this dispute), I thought I might finish it with some ending words. I reacted strongly when reading the last comment by Karello. We're not trying to spite Manx breeders or show any form of malice against you. That is not the case. If it were so, I'd gladly remove that breeder table picture of yours. Some of your contributions have been good, some of your contributions haven't. Wikipedia is a team work encyclopedia. No one here writes an article entirely by him/herself (unless it's a stub). Everyone co-operates here.

You might be a Manx breeder and consider your experience with it more accurate than our knowledge. But here on Wikipedia, members are just members. Whatever authority they have in the real world in their jobs or education, stuff like that just doesn't count here. We go by sources here. Until proven otherwise, we go by what our sources tell us. And they better be credible sources with what it seems good authority. Imagine how inaccurate every article would be if everyone working on them claimed themselves to be experts so they could write what they want? Trust me, it wouldn't work and Wikipedia would've been considered a joke. Therefore, we try to be neutral; you might revere that judge, and she probably means a lot to you. But with all due respect: the rest of the world doesn't care. If I read an article, I don't want superfluous stuff in it, because I will only loose interest in reading it if it's packed with everything that has some connection to the article. And I'm sure other people feel the same. Either way, I think the article is pretty decent right now. It really doesn't need to be fixed anymore. Sure, if someone finds a spelling/grammar error, feel free to correct it. It's rather accurate from a fact point of view as far as I can see. I will work more on it when I feel that something needs to be improved. I can't find much right now though. And I hope this dispute is solved now because I really just want to leave it behind and enjoy my life. Take care everybody.

Rules broken again

Karello: [EliasAlucard was told to stop personal views and keep length short.]

The JPS said...

"Both of your quests for accuracy are being lost in a barrage of personal insults and self promotion of knowledge and experience."

Rules

  • Keep it away from the personal. You have both asserted your experiences and knowledge. Move on.
  • Keep it short and near to the form you want it to be in the article.

No one cares how EliasAlucard feels about me or to read someone justifying edits. How Wikipedia works is already posted elsewhere. Karello 07:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of Manx syndrome

Great rewrite there JPS :) You managed to shorten it but still keep the quality and basically everything the previous version held. I like that. Less to read, but equal quality. However, I've got one tiny qualm with your rewrite. You removed this: As a remnant of the cat's inbreeding history, the genetic mutation that shortens the spine can have an excessive negative effect. The Manx syndrome is actually a remnant because of all the inbreeding this breed had to go through in order to become what it is today. All the inbreeding damaged this cat breed and left some marks, but I bet that it will most likely disappear completely in time from the breed with more and more educated and careful Manx breeders. But as of yet, it still exists, and being that it was evolved by inbreeding, wouldn't you consider it to be a remnant? You don't mind if I put it back, would you? By the way, welcome aboard :) Glad to have you working on this article as well. I know from past experience that you are a good Wikipedian :)

EliasAlucard|Talk 16:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

breed table

I fixed the breed table to conform to the standard (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cat_breeds#Table_template) If someone wants to work the information I removed from the table (that the breed's mean weight is 5.5kg/12lbs and that the breed was developed before the 1700s) into the article, be my guest. Lachatdelarue (talk) 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Karello's email

This is my reply to an e-mail I received from Karello.

Unless you can find a source supporting your claims, then it cannot be included in wikipedia. One of the principles of wikipedia is "Wikipedia is not a place for original research." No source = not in article. Full stop. Yes, I know you are very expereinced and knowledgable: I don't know how many times I have read it now. Without a source, that knowledge is meaningless in wikipedia.

There is no-one "in authority" in wikipedia. Some people (i.e. sysops) have additional technical capabilities, but policy strictly states that does not give them more authority than anyone else. I would be surprised if more expereinced users in resolving disputes haven't been following the dispute, since you both have asked such people.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Part of that collaboration is sometimes accepting that you can't have your own way. I would be very happy for someone to take over trying to resolve the dispute, since I have more important and interesting things to worry about.

JP

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll look for someone else to resolve. I really didn't want to waste your time on this. By the way, check in on MSN ;)
EliasAlucard|Talk 20:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My reply to JPS's email and posting here.

I apologize a head of time for this being long but felt there was much I needed to address ( I shall try to stick to the facts) and dispute.

To: TheJPS, there is no need to email me privately and post the same reply to this discussion page so those you wish to know I've email you in confidence could see your answer to me, one reply would have sufficed, private would have been more professional but I understand your position. Thank you again for acknowledging my capability to add knowledgeable information and edit the article accurately based on my experience, although your acknowledgement was not necessary, again. There is no need to continuously repeat Wikipedia's position that a source supporting claims is needed to substantiate things I post to the article I got that a long time ago, although I question if this means ALL who post or just some? Up to this point, I feel I've done as you've asked of me, I've tried to stick to the facts, no personal attacks, limit my posts to this page and have tried my best to provide as many relevant sources and topics concerning the matters in question in a dispute including topics in different animals, each time I've been asked to. I realize your frustration with this article and acknowledge your hostility towards me. Admitting that you "don't even care about Manx cats and have more important and interesting things to worry about" shows how frustrated you are and that you might not be suited to reply with a verdict unbiased. I too am frustrated as well, and have a life beyond this article but am not easily discouraged, chased away by personal attacks or disputes, I will see this through. New individuals who can add to this article and might have more experience with this topic will always be a welcomed addition by me. When I joined Wikipedia I was encouraged to be bold (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BB) and have fun, that's a joke right?


In response to the accusation that you made on the history page "Description was not 'simplified'. The meaning was changed." I acted solely on what I felt was your verdict to the dispute concerning inbreeding. You stated "It doesn't seem that inbreeding can make any cat tailless. The gene is more important. I think it's too ambiguous and peripheral, and it would be better to leave it out of the article".

Yes, I changed the information relating to inbreeding to what I said was "Simplified explanation for taillessness in kittens, added information to the tail to tail breeding." I still feel it is simplifying it change it from "The most scientific explanation of this breed's evolution is that the lack of cats on Isle of Man became a problem, and thus, inbreeding became a very common thing—to the extent where a lack of tail became a natural trait with this breed. It is normal (not always) for cats to be born tailless, or have a shorter tail than usual when exposed to inbreeding, regardless of the breed. However, the taillessness disappears with subsequent breedings for such cats [2] (http://moggycat13.tripod.com/id46.html). This is one of the reasons why not any tailless cat can be called Manx."

to (reference page http://www.petpublishing.com/catkit/breeds/manx.shtml under paragraph beginning with "Scientists".

"The scientific explanation of this breed's evolution is that taillessness resulted from a mutant gene. Through time and a closed environment this genetic mutation became very concentrated and a known breed trait in cats on the Isle of Man."

Obviously Elias and perhaps you were offended by my edit on inbreeding, I apologize it was not my intent to offend anyone. When you and/or Elias removed my edit on inbreeding other information I added was removed that was not in question!! My edits are constantly being removed by Elias, relevant or not this should not be allowed to be happening without first being disputed and then settled! This along with personal attacks have been an on going thing I've had to deal with. I've been told this behavior is inappropriate on Wikipedia and have tried my best not to participate in them even when attacked, Elias has been told the same thing and has even promised to stop, yet still continues and is not banned.


Other edits I've posted (that have been removed) changed a redundant sentence that reads "The Manx (tailless) gene is dominant; kittens from Manx parents are generally born without any tail. There is no accurate rate to determine the amount of tailed to tailless kittens produced in each litter."

to

"The Manx (tailless) gene is dominant, but there is no accurate rate to determine the amount of tailed to tailless kittens produced in each litter." takes care of a redundancy in the two sentences.


Can anyone tell me why the prior sentence is better other than the fact that Elias was the one who posted it? Isn't this site about editing and improving the articles? I thought that's what I was doing not having "my way."


I also added information to the sentence "However, tailed Manx bred to tailed Manx normally results in all tailed kittens, even though there are exceptions."

to

"Tailed Manx bred to tailed Manx normally results in all tailed kittens. Exceptions are few and are believed one of the tailed cats was mistakenly thought to be tailed and was in fact a long stumpy."

I'm assuming again it was because I posted it?

Finally, many individuals have contacted me concerning the article I've been editing on this site, discussions on this and the history page. As a result, I've been asked to write and edit several articles on the Manx breed cat for their website's, some already exist on pages within this article. For now I have new kittens to watch grow and that's higher on my list than this. Karello 00:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." <--- Quote from Wikiepdia when you hit the "Edit this page" button. If you got a problem with this, don't edit. It's as simple as that. Stop dreaming of me being banned for editing your writing. I edit a lot on other articles. 80% of my edits are kept, the rest of it is either removed or changed to different sentences with the same meaning. This is how it works on Wikipedia. As for the inbreeding part, I've proven you wrong now by providing good sources. And JPS has a life. I regret I brought him into this dispute.
EliasAlucard|Talk 06:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I posted my reply here because it contained information which future people attempting to work on this might find helpful. As the author of my e-mail, what I do with it is my prerogative. I did not post your e-mail, which would indeed have been poor netiquette. You have already written much of what you wrote in your "confidential" e-mail on this talk page anyway.
  2. You have not been personally attacked, certainly not by me. I have merely stated as concisely as possible why decisions are going against you.
    1. You have responded to any personal attacks you believe Elias has made against you. There is little need for me to repeat them.
  3. I have no grievances/affiliations with either of you. Decisions going against you are usually because of W:NOR.
  4. Actually, I think the lack of my involvement/interest in Manx actually qualifies me as an impartial adjudicator.
  5. As this is an ongoing dispute, policy should be referred to whenever necessary.
  6. As far as WP:BB is concerned, check out WP:BB#...but don't be reckless. On a psychoanalytical level, I'm sure we're all having fun.
  7. I will look more closely at your edit. I reverted it immediately as it was a poorly constructed sentence that seemed to imply more than what we had agreed.
  8. I have enjoyed working on this article, and will also see it out. If an outsider is following this, I'd appreciate a bit of support, though.
  9. An individual's idea of improving an article is synonymous with having their "way."
The JPS 10:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British vs American English

Should I use American English or British English and And this one for whilst vs while. My dictionary clearly says that whilst is British English, and while is American English.

As to British English, Wikipedia rules also state that the article should stay in the same usage it was orrignally written in and the Manx article was orginally written with American spelling. Just becasue the Manx comes from England doesn't mean the article needs British spelling. In fact, there are many many more Manx cats living and being bred in the US than are in England. Being snotty about spelling is so not neccessary and While is used for Whilst in some parts of Britain so I see no problem with using the less archaric form. Pschemp 00:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to be snotty (take note of the smiley, it means I was kidding). Either way, this is a British topic. Doesn't matter if it was written in American English. It stays in British English due to rules I provided. And from now on I think we should discuss the article here.
EliasAlucard|Talk 03:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Where in the page is the British rule? I can't seem to find it.Pschemp 01:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is neither American English nor Commonwealth English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article." Here. :EliasAlucard|Talk 03:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

You read my question wrong, I meant where on this talk page did it state that British English must be used? I am quite familar with general Wikipedia policy and don't feel that the Manx is a British topic for the reasons stated above, however, it doesn't matter because I changed the wording so we don't have to disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to the masses, and as such should be written in the clearest manner possible. Since the debate over while/whist is not clear (and while is used in parts of Britain!) I feel it is best to bypass the whole issue. Pschemp 01:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Elias, do you not think there's been a big enough dispute with this article so far rather than bringing speling into the debate? Some people love 'correcting' other people's grammar and spelling. Just let them! The JPS 06:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I sincerlly apologize for getting drawn into such a petty argument. Like I said, I don't care about spelling either way and was just trying to make the article clear. At any rate the sentence is rewritten so to avoid the word and thus the debate should be over. Pschemp 15:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologize too. I didn't mean to upset anyone. Anyway, let's concentrate on the article :)
EliasAlucard|Talk 18:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
It’s not embarrassing at all that I managed to misspell the word ‘spelling’. I wish I could claim irony, but I’m going to claim Freud instead. The JPS 19:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on while vs. whilst, but the article seems slightly inconsistent between US and British spelling in a couple of places. Do we have a consensus as to which to go with? I could cite rules either way (Manx cats "closely related" to the Isle of Mann, vs. "first major contributor" being in US English), but a quick show of hands might be less painful than a debate on the principles... Alai 08:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

British Not bothered either way (so long as it's consistent). British originated topic= British.
British I vote British too. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:30, 1 May, 2005 (UTC)

Good improvements

I just want to say that Catbar did one hell of a job. Well done! EliasAlucard|Talk 01:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

BRAVO!!!

Catbar and Pschemp,

A big thank you for joining in and all the hard work spent on the Manx cat article, it's coming along nicely! It's great to have other cat breeder/exhibitors input in this article. I hope we can make plans to meet at the Annual or at a show sometime soon. Look forward to hearing from you both.

Karello|Talk 06:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos, and a few observations

Thanks for the kudos. I'm not a big expert in article cleanup, but I did what I could. Not being a Manx expert, I tried to avoid changing the facts.

I can see there's been quite a bit of controversy about the article. Wikipedia's about consensus where possible, but about presenting all sides of a dispute, in neutral fashion, when consensus can't be reached. That is a very tall order, as anyone who's contributed anything significant to the encyclopedia has found. The heat surrounding the article seems to have lessened of late - hopefully that's because all views of the Manx are being handled in a neutral-point-of-view (or non-POV) fashion. I grabbed two cat books from my bookshelf - books I consider to be good cat books - and looked up the Manx and they didn't agree on some of the points about the Manx that have caused friction in this article. Some articles just have to say "there's multiple opinions on this subject" and give them. Things get heated because we have strong opinions about some things and we care greatly about them. Agree to disagree, but present both sides. That works best.

I would suggest that this article might be a candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. It seems pretty good to me as it stands, but to take it to the next level, bringing in some new blood, might be useful. I am considering nominating it and am interested in opinions. Even just nominating it will get folks to look at it and may bring in new editors. I suspect it is a bit too specialized to actually get selected, but I think it has a chance. Featured articles on the Main Page often come from the ranks of the Article Improvement Drive. This would be a nice article on the Main Page, I think. I'd like to see it there some day.

I'll weigh in on the British English/American English issue, too. My personal thoughts are that the pertinent national standard should apply to articles that obviously and unarguably pertain to that "nation". The "London" article, referring to the capital of the United Kingdom, should be in British English. The article on "Chicago", the US city, should be in American English. Not everything is so clear-cut, however. The "eggplant" article would be expected to be in American English, while "aubergine" should be in British English. This leads us to a problem however, since there shouldn't be two articles for one topic. The current situation has "aubergine" redirecting to "eggplant". Not exactly fair to British speakers, but what do you do? Looking at the "Manx (cat)" article, I can construct scenarios defending both sets of spelling. Wikipedia greatly desires consistency and the "British English/American English" situation is no exception. I would suggest that in the case of which flavor/flavour of English to use, we might hold ourselves to a different standard. We recognize that Wikipedia is edited by many - anyone in fact. For an article that doesn't have a clear, obvious and unarguable choice - most articles - the writer may use what he or she prefers. It will mean that some articles will have both spellings. With a little trepidation, I say "So what?" Stated differently, why try to maintain the illusion of a single author of one nationality or the other? It doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. My attitude avoids many problems, including the occasional situation where I don't recognize the "other" English spelling as correct (I'm American, by the way, if it isn't obvious.) By the way, I don't think there's an icecubes' chance in Texas of my opinion winning out, but there you have it.

Thanks for listening. Keep cool and keep improving Wikipedia! Catbar (Brian Rock) 19:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

May I ask what kind of stuff you found in those books that were in opposition to some of the points in the article? I think it'd be great if the article was featured on the main page some day. I don't think the article needs that much improvement, but it might need some fine-tuning. As for the English, I think it should be British English, not just because this is a British topic, but also because most Wikipedians write in American English and it would be nice with some variety.
EliasAlucard|Talk 22:38, 1 May, 2005 (UTC)
The main point of controversy between the two books was the health status of the Manx with respect to the tail structure. One book, "Cat Owner's Home Veterinary Handbook" by Carlson and Giffin said the lack of a tail posed no handicap for the Manx, which I interpreted, possibly incorrectly, as indicating tail issues don't hamper breed health. Now that I look at it again, the statement really doesn't say that as much as cats don't need tails to be functional. Oddly, though, this book doesn't really deal with the Manx and tail issues other than this statement. The other book, Page's "The Complete Cat Owner's Manual", emphasizes that the lack of a tail requires an owner, and especially a breeder, to take care in meeting the needs of the individual cat, and the breed. It specifically mentions that the base of the spine is very sensitive in most Manx. I don't have experience with Manx, but from what I've read and heard, the word "some" might be more appropriate than the word "most", unless the author was specifically talking about completely tailless Manx. Again, my knowledge is second-hand, so I'm not about to push that point with those who have experience with the breed.
If we put the article up for the Article Improvement Drive, people will look at it. There's a good chance that some of the comments will be very critical. We're essentially putting a bulls-eye on the article and asking people to fire at it if they see the need. We might get feedback that it is pretty much ready to go to the Main Page, but in any case, the process will attract quite a few eyeballs and perhaps some edits to the article. If each edit on the average improves the article, then the article wins, and so do we. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea!

CatBar... Thanks again for your thoughts and suggestions. I think there's always room for improvement and submitting the article for further review is a great idea, I support it.

Karello 13:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I just nominated the article for the Article Improvement Drive. I hope folks like the idea. This is my first nomination, and I was a bit vague on the proper syntax of nomination, so hopefully I won't get flamed for doing it wrong.

It actually could have been a Peer Review candidate, since it's in pretty good shape, but the AID will probably invite more outside input. Let's see if it makes it. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Isle of Mann

The Isle of Mann isn't a country It is a dependancy of the British Crown(not the UK) Dudtz 8/19/05 7:22 PM EST

Archive

How about we archive this talk page? I don't know how to do it, but it sure needs to be done in my opinion. I mean, it's way too much text, no one is ever going to read all of it, and we need to start anew. It's too much negative atmosphere in reading all of that, because most of it is dispute anyway. So how about it? EliasAlucard|Talk 02:02, 20 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Talk%7EManx_%28cat%29_archive1_4a2b.html"