Talk:Fur farming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is pure propoganda by the fur commission, disgusting! FUll of lies

Contents

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Added the NPOV marker to this page. If you are going to have a discussion of the pros and cons of fur farming, present a balanced discussion and present both sides. This article appears to have been inserted for the purpose of presenting one side of the issue. DanMS 2 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

I have readded the NPOV marker after merging material from fur about fur farming. For a much more detailed discussion about the disputed neutrality, see the Talk:Fur page. Elf | Talk 06:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made some changes to this article to get it to NPOV, however this article needs a lot of work, including source citation for some of these claims and needs to be rewritten to NPOV. As it stands, I think it should be flagged because it is very much one-sided. Bigj 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this article from the "animal liberation" category. This is an article on fur farming and it's highly innapropriate, as was the "Animal Liberation" template I removed. Additionally, this article needs more actual information on fur farming. Also, I'm flagging it NPOV, as it's a work in progress and as it stands, it is not NPOV. Bigj 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that all my changes have been reverted with no explanation. I'm going to revert it back unless a good explanation is made and a consensus is reached. This article is ridiculously biased and the quality needs to be improved, as it's what I was working toward. Bigj 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You were introducing POV, Bigj. It being biased in one direction doesn't justify making it biased in the other. Being pro-fur farming is not the default position. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou for pointing that out, I appreciate your input. What did you find to be POV specifically, and how do you think we could work to change it? Discussion about specific topics would be really helpfull so we can reach consensus, rather than just generalized POV claims. (I appologize, I was being vague before, but maybe we could both state our POV concerns and actually find out what we disagree about). Thanks. 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive response, which I appreciate. I'm going to continue this discussion at the end of the page for ease of reading. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Please don't remove citations requests or add unsourced POV. It would make sense if everyone would source all their edits from now on. This article is badly written and undersourced as it is, so let's not make it even worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding on the talk page. Actually all of my edits are sourced : ). Please do not remove the NPOV marker without discussing it first. This article, is basically just a verbatim copy from PETA's animal fur fact sheet. I hardly consider an article lifted from any one source to be of encyclopedic quality or NPOV. The marker should therefore remain until we can make this article NPOV. Bigj 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, you should decide whether you want to use footnotes or embedded links. I'd prefer the latter, but I'll go either way so long as we do it as laid out in WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. There is apparently some confusion here. The standard MLA way to cite an article is that your citations refer to the whole paragraph that preceeds it. Therefore "[1,2]" refers to the whole paragraph that preceeds it: "Animals on fur farms are fed excess products from production of beef, fish and poultry. This practice reduces the effects of environmentally damaging waste produced in this food industries. According to the Fur Commission, fur farming is considered a good conservation practice." Look through the sources and you'll see that everything falls into place. I'm reverting it back to the way it was : ). Thanks Bigj 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
MLA is compatible with WP:CITE. That's what I'm most familiar with. Bigj 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't keep reverting. You've introduced changes that have been objected to, and a citation style that doesn't exist, and you've removed legitimate citation requests. It's inappropriate to ignore those objections and plough ahead as if no one has said anything. If you want to use footnotes, please do it properly. We don't simply add [1], whether it's after a sentence or para and it has nothing to do with MLA; please read CITE. Otherwise, I'll insert the sources as embedded links when I next edit the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I must be confused because I thought I read "Therefore, if you already use a particular citation style, especially the preferred style by scholars in a field related to the article you are editing, please use the citation style of your choice." The page also said that there is no consensus regarding citation style. Are we talking about two different things here? Bigj 09:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

I flagged the main page with the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} template. I understand that some citations are provided, but at least one is from a very POV source, and there are many other items that need citation. If no citations are forthcoming, the uncited material will need to be removed. Jrkarp 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various types section

How can we say that cat and dog and mink furs are the only farm-raised furs.

[edit] PETA-Video

perhaps something for this page

Link to PETA TV

I got so sick watching this... 62.206.245.74 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you to try to push your propaganda. The articles are supposed to be neutral. Lycanthrope777 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Edit

I've edited out this part:

' Films of abuse to animals exist which highlight these disgusting practices. The Fur Commission of the US has questioned the integrity/authenticity of the images by outrageously claiming that the acts of skinning the animals alive was staged, however given that several different videos have appeared from independent sources, yet similiarily showing the same barbaric acts; the images can be taken to be fact.[1]'

Personally I agree with what is said but descriptions such as 'disgusting', 'barbaric', and 'outrageously' are all very biased and have no place on Wikipedia.

91.107.222.109 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No argument on that edit! This is so blatantly POV you could probably have skipped the discussion and just done the revert. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)