Talk:Clouded leopard

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh. This is a real cool graph. Maybe it should be inserted automatically on all talk pages. — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

new Main article photo
Now let me be clear, I'm not super experienced changing photo's on WIKI, so I am letting you know up front. I know its complicated with trying to find something that isn't copyrighted and is part of free use. Having said that, it is of my opinion that the main picture for this article of the clouded leopard, is very dark and hard to actually see the leopard. That is my opinion, not looking to get roasted or flamed but just wanted to start a discussion and talk about it and see what others think PrecociousPeach (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Western Science"
Can we please talk about your resistance to the term "Western Science"? It's a widely used term. (Please follow the link before arguing this point.) "Western Science" describes a new, more rigorous approach to science, but there was science before the SR. The common assumption that there was no science before Europeans invented it in the 16th century is rejected by current scholarship.

The distinction from plain-old science doesn't usually matter — except in cases like this, where "first known to science" implies that there was no science being done in Asia before the Europeans brought the Scientific Revolution there.

Your responses so far:
 * 1) "Science is just science." See above
 * 2) "Let's say 'Natural history' instead of science." That just replaces "science" with a term for a category of science. Europeans didn't invent natural history either.
 * 3) "Let's just leave out the word 'science' and talk about when the first clouded leopard arrived in Europe." And why is that arrival important? Because it was how the animal was introduced to Western Science.

I know, I know, adjusting your language in the face of changing social norms is a PITA. But that's all the more reason to do it.

— Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When i wrote 'known to science' in the lead, the GA reviewer passed this without comment. Initially, I had this phrase in mind as contrast to 'known in culture', because I'm pretty sure that local people knew the cat long before any scientist saw it. But since you make such a fuss about this phrase now, I do not think this important enough in the lead to discuss 'science' or 'natural history', contrarily. The context is unambiguous + clear without the phrase, and that is important. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC); revised – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How does changing "Science" to "Western Science" make it less clear? I say again: we need to talk about why you don't like that term. If you refuse to answer this question, you're just doing WP:idontlikeit and WP:WL. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the 2 is important AT ALL. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is it not important? I've told you why I think it is. You need to explain why you think it isn't. And it would be helpful if you could do so without personal comments ("making a fuss") or shouting (yes, this is a link). Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Come on, guy. It's a simple difference of opinion. We disagree about "science" vs "western science". That's the only issue. If you can't come up with a good reason that I can't say "western science" you need to let me make the change so we can both get on with our lives.
 * Can I persuade you to take a moment and read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I already wrote : The context is unambiguous + clear withOUT the word 'science'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Known to science just means the animal was described formally and published in a scientific journal. This acknowledges that the animal will have been known to the local people, which an alternative like discovered wouldn't. Adding western science implies that there may be some other science where the animal is known. Unless this is the case it adds nothing and serves just to obfuscate and add ambiguity. The current version without mentioning science is clear enough. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aah, thanks for your feedback + backup!!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, the assumption it's only "science" when Western scientists do it.
 * Oh well, never mind. If you guys can't deal with the distinction between "science" and "western science" then we should just go back to "unknown to science". Which I still find problematic, but is better than all this handwaving about zoos. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @BhagyaMani And I disagreed.
 * You were the one that put "science" in the sentence in the first place. And you were right to do so -- you were describing an important scientific discovery. If you're going to delete any reference to science, the sentence becomes random trivia about zookeeping.
 * This is about "science" vs "western science". That's why you reverted my edit. Please stop pretending there are other issues. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If you know an earlier description in any 'eastern' science, then please share it here!!! If you don't, then this talk is pointless. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

relationship with humans
Any more information regarding the feline's relationship with humans (both historical and today) outside of zoos? 72.174.131.123 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)