Talk:Fur clothing

These are old conversations without subject headings
--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.

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)

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)
 * It may be one part of Canadian history, but saying that the country wouldn't exist were it not for fur is a bit simplistic. I think that Canada may have been settled due to increasing population, economic and social pressures in Europe. The presence or absence of fur bearing animals did not determine the existence of the country, although it certainly contributed to its development and exploration. Human greed might be a better determinant, though, since most furs were sought for profit, not for the use of those who gathered them. As well, the granting of land to religious minorities encouraged western migration and settlement, no fur involved at all. Bob98133 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * I disagree: unless the article is re-written in it's ENTIRETY it is garbage. The PETA website is used as a reference. I could think of no better example of an unreliable source.  The PETA organization is on a crusade to stop all animal deaths at the hands of humans everywhere. (That they have noble intentions is what they claim.) They do not provide facts, numbers, nor statistics, they have "this is secret hidden camera proof" propaganda. The article should be deleted and started again from scratch: then locked to prevent tampering from animal rights extremists. Tsarevna (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lock the article and throw away the key? What a clever cooperative strategy! If you wish to make constructive changes to the article, find references for your changes and edit the article. It is not up to the editors who worked on this article to date and provided refs to dump all that on your say so.Bob98133 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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. --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)


 * By the way, the links that have been removed and replaced are a separate issue. I agree that they all don't have to be there but I don't have time now to review them all.Bob98133 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add...
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.

Fur fetish info
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 Bob98133 (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Furrier
There is no article 'Furrier'?! --Kürschner (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to check some information on that as well, and found it odd that 1. there is no furrier article, and 2, that even if there wasn't that there wasn't a section devoted to that within the scope of this article. In my opinion, since it is a job title that covers a wide range of things within the fur industry, the section should have a more visual note than a minor post in 1 line.  32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Processing of fur
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126045059/http://www.hsus.org/furfree/fashion/retailers/furfree_retailers_designers.html to http://www.hsus.org/furfree/fashion/retailers/furfree_retailers_designers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fur heel.jpg


 * No fur (feathers), image exchanged. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

grey squirrel
Hi, I'm pretty sure that grey squirrel should be red squirrel. The Greys weren't introduced into England until the nineteenth century.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dead link
Unless you are going to correct the ref then 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)
 * Hi Invasive Spices, as that was a reference not just an external link, WP:KDL applies. The fact that it was referenced at one point is important, if we are suspicious of it we can look at issues such as the other edits of whoever added that content. If the references they used that still persist pan out then it is likely that this reference was also good. Deleting references becasue the site is now gone means that everything we have is subject to link rot, and no longer having a reference we can easily check would become the same as something having never been referenced.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * KDL is an opinion. If we retain every dead ref we are confusing the reader and falsely giving the impression this is verifiable. At the least there should have been a . In any case I have attempted manually and there are no archives. This may never have been a valid url. I have added   and I think you should delete it. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging it "dead link". I think KDL has been around long enough to count as more than an opinion, if you really want it deprecated or changed I'd suggest filing an RFC. As for the possibility of it never being a valid URL, as I said above if you are suspicious of it look at the history, see what else was written by the Wikipedian who used it. If it was someone whose content included other stuff that still checks out today then I'd suggest giving it far more confidence than if that account was a one off flyby or their content was otherwise problematic.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Article Reorganization
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)

Anti-fur products
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)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)