This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
--Wtf this is a lie they don't skin the animals alive! well even if they do I don't care but I think that the article is lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.209.26 ( talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC) thx u for fixing that section of text, prob some angry animal rights activist did it.
The following passage is not presented in a neutral manner and should be revised:
"Currently, there are no federal laws providing protection for the millions of animals—including chinchillas, foxes, minks, and raccoons—who suffer and die on fur farms. The fur industry remains completely self-regulated, which means that animals are kept in crowded, filthy wire cages, where they often develop neurotic behaviors and become sick or wounded, and fur farmers kill them by breaking their necks while they are fully conscious or by using anal or genital electrocution."
The above passage has been removed. The NPOV dispute tag should be removed.-- Exitstageleft99 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
is this article unbiased??
It seems anti-faux fur. But, it is good to have the methods of obtaining fur because they are not POV, just a fact of how the animals are killed.
I've added quite a lot and reorganised things. Tell me if it's rubbish. The Penguin 11:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph linking to the Canadian Government survey should be left in.
Vincent
09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is absolutely not unbiased. It is wrong that it is allowed to exist in this form in an encyclopedia. My objections rest on a number of points:
1. The statement that animals are killed in humane way is presented as a fact which it cannot be - whether the killing is humane or not is a subjective issue depending on the viewpoint of the individual. This individual for one does not agree with the article. I tried to balance this account by pointing out that animals are also frequently skinned alive on some fur farms but my addition was removed.
2. Secondly the article goes to great lengths to discuss the benefits of real over synthetic fur without presenting the counterside of that argument. This is again highly subjective and one sided.
3. Finally the link which is included to websites of fur manafacturers is at best nothing short of propaganda for the fur trade and therefore surely inappropriate to the article - at worst it is free advertising for companies, that whatever I might personally think of their business, are commercial enterprises and, as such, should surely not be using an encyclopedia to advertise their products. To counterbalance this propaganda I tried to include a link to the antifur webpage furisdead.com but this was also removed.
An article of this sort has no place whatsoever in a supposedly (albeit popularist) academic publication.
I'm pretty much neutral on the subject, I think it's kind of cruel to kill animals we don't realy need to kill but then again many already poor native families rely on fur. The controversy section says "Canada, Canada, Canada!". There aren't just Canadians who hunt seals. Anyways, it isn't such a big controversy anymore, it's totally last year, the celebrities have done all their photo-ops and attention-getting.
It's pretty basic Canadian history. Fur was the reason Canada was settled and drove the expansion of Canada. Stargate70 ( talk) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is absolutely not unbiased. It is wrong that it is allowed to exist in this form in an encyclopedia. My objections rest on a number of points:
1. The statement that animals are killed in humane way is presented as a fact which it cannot be - whether the killing is humane or not is a subjective issue depending on the viewpoint of the individual. This individual for one does not agree with the article. I tried to balance this account by pointing out that animals are also frequently skinned alive on some fur farms but my addition was removed.
2. Secondly the article goes to great lengths to discuss the benefits of real over synthetic fur without presenting the counterside of that argument. This is again highly subjective and one sided.
3. Finally the link which is included to websites of fur manafacturers is at best nothing short of propaganda for the fur trade and therefore surely inappropriate to the article - at worst it is free advertising for companies, that whatever I might personally think of their business, are commercial enterprises and, as such, should surely not be using an encyclopedia to advertise their products. To counterbalance this propaganda I tried to include a link to the antifur webpage furisdead.com but this was also removed.
An article of this sort has no place whatsoever in a supposedly (albeit popularist) academic publication.
This article has not enough referance to the fur that people in the artic wear, And I aggree, it is not a very well written article Dinobert 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)dinobert06----
I removed references to fur protests being violent and being run by ecoterrorists. Both of these terms have definitions and I have never heard of a fur protest that fit them. Bob98133 ( talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why fur activists are so feverish about preventing fur farms but not so with poultry farms.
Methinks it has something to do with the fact that chickens aren't as cute and cuddly as foxes.
Hypocrites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.41.202 ( talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that they do care about poultry farms aswell just they are two different topics which shouldn't be in the same article. Even if these particular people aren't so "feverish" about poultry farming there are people who are.
I question the value of this section to the article. I'm sure that there are fetishes about everything, which makes the topic more appropriate for the fetish article than each individual article. A sentence mentioning this with a link would be more than sufficient. An entire article section gives this fringe topic [[WP:UNDUE]. Pls discuss prior to reverting. Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Canadian man fur coat 1910.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
There is no article 'Furrier'?! -- Kürschner ( talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Parts of this section seem odd. "The use of wool involves shearing the animal's skin from the living animal, so that the animal will die slowly and painfully." This suggests that shearing sheep kills them. I am not aware that this is the case. "The workers seem to have no remorse whatsoever during this process and think that the animal suffering feels no pain." Which 'process' is this referring to? Muleiolenimi ( talk) 20:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fur clothing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Raccoon coat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty sure that grey squirrel should be red squirrel. The Greys weren't introduced into England until the nineteenth century. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@ WereSpielChequers: Unless you are going to correct the ref then my edit was correct. The url is not temporarily dead. It is permanently dead and the whole domain name is unused. Invasive Spices ( talk) 1 April 2022 (UTC)
{{dead link}}
. In any case I have attempted manually and there are
no archives. This may never have been a valid url. I have added {{dead link}}
and I think you should delete it.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The article is good but a bit rambly. I see there's a lot of back and forth on the history section. What if the article was reformatted to present the information in more of a linear fashion? Perhaps the anti-fur campaigns could be a part of the history section in a sub-category ? This was the information flows more smoothly? Harvestofthecommunity12 ( talk) 18:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This section reads like a propaganda piece for anti-fur products. If it isn't revised it should probably be removed. Kaid ( talk) 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbaylor ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Z'Jarhae.
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter ( talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)