Talk:Fur clothing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Fur clothing is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
--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.
Contents |
[edit] Canada
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 might be worth mentioning that if it weren't for the fur trade Canada wouldn't even exist.
24.87.57.91 07:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)- Wow. So without the fur trade there would be no Canada? Have you got a reference for that? Bob98133 12:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ARTICLE COMPLETELY BIASED
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.
- Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an academic publication. However, I agree with you that the fur industry is controversial, and that it's important that Wikipedia takes no side in the debate. I've just done a neutrality check on the article and have removed the tag correspondingly. I have made a few minor changes (including to the list of websites - I agree with you that it's overlong), but the egregious errors you refer to above mainly seem to have gone.
- My greatest POV concern about the article before I edited it was the naming of one designer, Julien McDonald, specifically in the "see also" list. He has indeed used furs, but then so have almost all the others at his level (with the exception of Stella McCartney and perhaps a couple of others). This article isn't a list of who has and who has not used fur, and there's no reason to single anyone out specifically unless they have directly contributed to the debate, in which case that could be noted in the article.
- I am also concerned that the article as it stands reflects a very American and European perspective, and does not make much attempt to look at the issue in a global context. I have made a few minor changes to this end but much more work needs to be done here. -- TinaSparkle 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unless a section is added to counter the "Anti-fur campaigns" section, the whole article is a biased pile of garbage.
24.87.57.91 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unless a section is added to counter the "Anti-fur campaigns" section, the whole article is a biased pile of garbage.
-
[edit] More history please
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----
[edit] violence, ecoterrorism
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)
-
- Your personal experience is irrelevant.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --RucasHost (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am reverting this again. Sorry, terrorism is a POV term as is ecoterrorism. Despite the fact that journalists use these terms interchangably with other non-violent protests does not change the meaning of these words. In order to use them, you will have to document not that someone has called them terrorists or their actions terrorism, but that their actions fit the definitions you are using for these words - once those definitions are established and agreed to. As for ecoterrorism, your statement confuses animal welfare groups with environmental groups. Please document that environmental groups have been engaged in ecoterorism against fur clothing.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your personal experience is irrelevant.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --RucasHost (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
