This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fur. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fur at the Reference desk. |
Just a quick question - why is The Naked Ape(Book) in the first section? I understand that it's to mean humans, but it seems like a very round about way to say "Humans".
Hi Rosemary. Fur is in fact popular in cold countries, and it's an overstatement to say a majority of Canadians oppose fur.
We can see that fur is popular simply by noticing that it's still sold and people buy it, e.g. my mother and my aunts have fur coats. I think my aunts would object to being called "historical", but that's beside the point since my sister-in-law and a few cousins also have fur coats, so the popularity has crossed the generation gap. If I lived in Montreal instead of Tokyo, I'd probably wear a fur hat in January. You'll find similar fashion trends in Scandinavia, Russia, and even Mongolia.
Second, most Canadians do not oppose fur. There may well be a majority that favors humane treatment of animals and the protection of endangered species, but that does not mean that a majority actively opposes fur. After all, I'd say at least 90% Canadians consume animal products each day either by eating meat or wearing leather.
Vincent Vfp15 02:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just removed the following txt becuse it exactly duplicates the text here. If you are the copyright holder or author of this text and can vouch for that fact, we can replace it on the main page.
We can't really replace it on the article either, because it's very opinionated. It's an essay, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Rhobite 05:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I originally submitted the text re: factory farming furs. It's not sensationalist, but accurate and sourced material from PETA's fur fact-sheet (which is not copyrighted, that's why it was found on other fur site). Can I resubmit it? I can delete any emotionally-laden words, but "painful" is really a truthful description when it comes to be electrocuted.
As there certainly seems to be a POV dispute already going on here in the talk page, I added the template at the top. I know nothing about the fur industry, but I'm willing to bet the two English external links are biased and I don't read German.
How appropriate is external link on the horrors of fur farming in an article not about fur farming specifically but rather about fur in a broader context? AmyBeth 23:18:57, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
I've added an image of a skinned rabbit to the page and would appreciate some comments on it. I feel the image is justified in terms of NPOV, because it illustrates the reality of removing skin from an animal. However, I'm worried about it aesthetically, because it's upsetting to look at (although not the worst I found, unfortunately: there are images online of animals who appear to have been skinned alive). There's often a fine line with images between being educative and gratuitous, and this one straddles that divide, so feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with creating fur farming to move the issues off this page. If this article dealt only with fur, it might not be so bad, but it deals with fur as clothing, and to make it NPOV, we have to mention how it becomes clothing. It's not just the methods that are controversial, as the article now states, but the fact of it. And it's not just fur farming: animals are trapped too. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support Donama 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
'Fish-fur' is a slang term used in the Russian Army for the fake fur often used on winter clothing and the ubiquitous ushanka hats. So-named because it does not come from any recognisable animal, artificial fur is often a by-product of the petrochemical process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.98.246 ( talk) 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Animal protest industry" is a neologism that I've only seen one person use. It is obviously highly POV. - Will Beback · † · 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to second this. The implication of "animal protest industry" is that the only people who protest the use of fur are people who are just trying to make money through the (cynical) use of appealing to people opposed to animal cruelty. - Xwwxw
I'm baffled by how one could find fault with the term "animal protest industry".
It refers to organizations who focus on a single narrow issue (animals & cruelty) and whose only final product is protest as opposed to orgs that have a more holistic and inclusive agenda. It also acknowledges protest as both product and revenue generator.
I've seen the term in a number of reports over the years and it seems to me to be the one that fits the best. I am very open to suggestions for other terms that might make the same important distinctions if others find them more fitting. I've read a few more but none that spring to mind immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuroTrash ( talk • contribs).
The Fur Clothing section makes various assertions that are not referenced or cited. These assertions are not supported by text in the main article. The "citations missing" template has been added to flag these omissions. As examples:
Fuzzyeric 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody please describe the origin of the fur?-- Dojarca ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I came into this article after looking up Keratin. The picture is a shock picture - much like a picture of a scalp when looking up hair - and the fetishist section is irrelavant. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot article does not have foot fetishism as its own section, and the foot article has much more information.
There is also a large amount of political bias present in the third paragraph. The controversy section is not neutral, either.
Much of this article should be split in different articles. Trapping and skinning both belong in their own articles, and if anything fur fetishism belongs in human activities or a "Fur in culture" section. There is some useful information in here, but not enough. Wolvenmoon ( talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
hair & fur are exactly the same thing.
the differentiation of usage is more cultural than scientific/factual.
see here for something reasonably definitive:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-difference-be
also, it is not unheard of to speak of human fur.
more to the point, fur is used more as a term considering the coat of hair overall, or leather with hair still attached.
this really needs cleaning up, & i don't have time to do more than try & tidy the intro right now.
not all fur is a dual-coat of guard hairs & ground hairs either; that's far too broad a generalization.
Lx 121 ( talk) 06:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is mostly devoted to the use of mammal fur in clothing and the controversies about this. This seems odd to me, like as if the article about "eggs" was just about culinary applications and free-range or vegan pro/con perspectives. It seems like the article as it presently exists should be renamed "Fur coats and the animal rights debate". Does this seem strange to anyone else? Tomyhoi ( talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The meta-links seem messy. Next to the general topics on
There are more specific ones like:
I reckon that Fur and Hair (animal) are the same thing. But then the issue comes with local differences.
In Dutch there is a disctinct difference between:
In Spanish a different distinction between
The problem is that two or three would fit the English term 'fur'. A similar issue is coined on the Dutch Discussion Page by Kürschner (written in German). Perhaps we need more meta-categories. I really want you all to think about this issue and come with solutions. And feel welcome to actively edit the wiki-data categories. Timelezz ( talk) 15:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
/ Fur - Fur \ Fur
In looking at definitions of "fur" and "pelage", several indctae this term is used exclusively for mammals. This conflicts with the opening sentence of this article. Are there examples when "fur" is used for non-mammals?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fur. 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) 00:19, 9 October 2017 (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) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
At least one reputable online source published an interview with an expert stating that there is no difference between fur and hair. The opening sentence of the page states that fur is hair. Nowhere on this page is it stated what the actual material composition of fur is, simply that it is hair. This is an essentially meaningless definition akin to saying stone is rock. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:C200:684:BDC5:964:E498:DF07 ( talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fur. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fur at the Reference desk. |
Just a quick question - why is The Naked Ape(Book) in the first section? I understand that it's to mean humans, but it seems like a very round about way to say "Humans".
Hi Rosemary. Fur is in fact popular in cold countries, and it's an overstatement to say a majority of Canadians oppose fur.
We can see that fur is popular simply by noticing that it's still sold and people buy it, e.g. my mother and my aunts have fur coats. I think my aunts would object to being called "historical", but that's beside the point since my sister-in-law and a few cousins also have fur coats, so the popularity has crossed the generation gap. If I lived in Montreal instead of Tokyo, I'd probably wear a fur hat in January. You'll find similar fashion trends in Scandinavia, Russia, and even Mongolia.
Second, most Canadians do not oppose fur. There may well be a majority that favors humane treatment of animals and the protection of endangered species, but that does not mean that a majority actively opposes fur. After all, I'd say at least 90% Canadians consume animal products each day either by eating meat or wearing leather.
Vincent Vfp15 02:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just removed the following txt becuse it exactly duplicates the text here. If you are the copyright holder or author of this text and can vouch for that fact, we can replace it on the main page.
We can't really replace it on the article either, because it's very opinionated. It's an essay, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Rhobite 05:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I originally submitted the text re: factory farming furs. It's not sensationalist, but accurate and sourced material from PETA's fur fact-sheet (which is not copyrighted, that's why it was found on other fur site). Can I resubmit it? I can delete any emotionally-laden words, but "painful" is really a truthful description when it comes to be electrocuted.
As there certainly seems to be a POV dispute already going on here in the talk page, I added the template at the top. I know nothing about the fur industry, but I'm willing to bet the two English external links are biased and I don't read German.
How appropriate is external link on the horrors of fur farming in an article not about fur farming specifically but rather about fur in a broader context? AmyBeth 23:18:57, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
I've added an image of a skinned rabbit to the page and would appreciate some comments on it. I feel the image is justified in terms of NPOV, because it illustrates the reality of removing skin from an animal. However, I'm worried about it aesthetically, because it's upsetting to look at (although not the worst I found, unfortunately: there are images online of animals who appear to have been skinned alive). There's often a fine line with images between being educative and gratuitous, and this one straddles that divide, so feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with creating fur farming to move the issues off this page. If this article dealt only with fur, it might not be so bad, but it deals with fur as clothing, and to make it NPOV, we have to mention how it becomes clothing. It's not just the methods that are controversial, as the article now states, but the fact of it. And it's not just fur farming: animals are trapped too. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support Donama 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
'Fish-fur' is a slang term used in the Russian Army for the fake fur often used on winter clothing and the ubiquitous ushanka hats. So-named because it does not come from any recognisable animal, artificial fur is often a by-product of the petrochemical process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.98.246 ( talk) 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Animal protest industry" is a neologism that I've only seen one person use. It is obviously highly POV. - Will Beback · † · 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to second this. The implication of "animal protest industry" is that the only people who protest the use of fur are people who are just trying to make money through the (cynical) use of appealing to people opposed to animal cruelty. - Xwwxw
I'm baffled by how one could find fault with the term "animal protest industry".
It refers to organizations who focus on a single narrow issue (animals & cruelty) and whose only final product is protest as opposed to orgs that have a more holistic and inclusive agenda. It also acknowledges protest as both product and revenue generator.
I've seen the term in a number of reports over the years and it seems to me to be the one that fits the best. I am very open to suggestions for other terms that might make the same important distinctions if others find them more fitting. I've read a few more but none that spring to mind immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuroTrash ( talk • contribs).
The Fur Clothing section makes various assertions that are not referenced or cited. These assertions are not supported by text in the main article. The "citations missing" template has been added to flag these omissions. As examples:
Fuzzyeric 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody please describe the origin of the fur?-- Dojarca ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I came into this article after looking up Keratin. The picture is a shock picture - much like a picture of a scalp when looking up hair - and the fetishist section is irrelavant. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot article does not have foot fetishism as its own section, and the foot article has much more information.
There is also a large amount of political bias present in the third paragraph. The controversy section is not neutral, either.
Much of this article should be split in different articles. Trapping and skinning both belong in their own articles, and if anything fur fetishism belongs in human activities or a "Fur in culture" section. There is some useful information in here, but not enough. Wolvenmoon ( talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
hair & fur are exactly the same thing.
the differentiation of usage is more cultural than scientific/factual.
see here for something reasonably definitive:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-difference-be
also, it is not unheard of to speak of human fur.
more to the point, fur is used more as a term considering the coat of hair overall, or leather with hair still attached.
this really needs cleaning up, & i don't have time to do more than try & tidy the intro right now.
not all fur is a dual-coat of guard hairs & ground hairs either; that's far too broad a generalization.
Lx 121 ( talk) 06:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is mostly devoted to the use of mammal fur in clothing and the controversies about this. This seems odd to me, like as if the article about "eggs" was just about culinary applications and free-range or vegan pro/con perspectives. It seems like the article as it presently exists should be renamed "Fur coats and the animal rights debate". Does this seem strange to anyone else? Tomyhoi ( talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The meta-links seem messy. Next to the general topics on
There are more specific ones like:
I reckon that Fur and Hair (animal) are the same thing. But then the issue comes with local differences.
In Dutch there is a disctinct difference between:
In Spanish a different distinction between
The problem is that two or three would fit the English term 'fur'. A similar issue is coined on the Dutch Discussion Page by Kürschner (written in German). Perhaps we need more meta-categories. I really want you all to think about this issue and come with solutions. And feel welcome to actively edit the wiki-data categories. Timelezz ( talk) 15:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
/ Fur - Fur \ Fur
In looking at definitions of "fur" and "pelage", several indctae this term is used exclusively for mammals. This conflicts with the opening sentence of this article. Are there examples when "fur" is used for non-mammals?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fur. 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) 00:19, 9 October 2017 (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) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
At least one reputable online source published an interview with an expert stating that there is no difference between fur and hair. The opening sentence of the page states that fur is hair. Nowhere on this page is it stated what the actual material composition of fur is, simply that it is hair. This is an essentially meaningless definition akin to saying stone is rock. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:C200:684:BDC5:964:E498:DF07 ( talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)