Talk:Angora rabbit

message: There have been repeated attempts to add sneaky vandalism to this article mentioning "Trelicians," who don't exist.  .  This article actually began as sneaky vandalism, and the bad information exists on some outdated wikipedia mirrors, so be please be wary when simply verifying through google.  -- Norvy (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A noted historian of rabbit breeds, Bob D. Whitman mentions "Trelicians" in his history of the Angora breed appearing in his much-consulted book: Domestic Rabbits & Their Histories: Breeds of the World (see upcoming citation in the article). Whitman is a recognized authority in this field; however, in this particular case, no source for his information was provided. Note that Whitman states (on page 48): "Ah, the beautiful Angora rabbit—from where it came, we will never know for sure." His next sentence states: "It has been written [my italics] that the indigenous Trelicians, which were small and frail people, first bred the Angora rabbit in the southern Carpathian mountains around the 6th century."  Mr Whitman (who passed away in 2009) was clear: he made no claim to the authenticity of this purported origin. I, like others, have not yet found any information on the Trelicians or their relationship to these rabbits. Because of his widespread reputation for diligent and original research, however, Whitman's observation should be noted—in the context in which he presented it. Yes, Whitman may have been inserting a small jest into his otherwise impeccable research (perhaps to have it floating about in the world well after him?). In light of all this, I am preparing an edit that will reflect these important aspects of Whitman's statements, in the hopes that this "Trelicians" theory—which keeps surfacing, only to be shot down—will be taken in the appropriate and measured light. I look forward to feedback on my attempt to present a helpful clarification.  Timbuk-2 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "It has been written" sounds like he was potentially referencing this article.  I've removed the section per WP:RSUW.  Referencing this "small jest" is not appropriate and only perpetuates the misinformation.  18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Trelicians don't exist

message: This site says the wool is just pulled off during their natural molting.  Is this true?  They aren't sheared or skinned?  More details would be good. — Omegatron 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People usually comb or pluck the hairs from angora rabbits.  They are wool animals, so by definition they are not skinned for spinning.  I have heard of people shearing the animals, but my understanding is that that does not produce as good a product of combing of plucking. You're right, it would probably be good to make sure that kind of information is covered somewhere. --Ahc 04:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheared? 

message: http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/bri3n/fuzzball.jpg
TRIBBLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluefoxicy (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribble! 

message: Full Disclosure: I breed Angora Rabbits, and I am a member of ARBA and NARBC
I would suggest that the section on "human treatment" of Angora rabbits during wool production is misleading with regards to its unsourced statements regarding culling. While I would argue that culling does occur, it is simply not as common or as specific to Angora rabbits as the original poster would lead you to believe. Culling occurs in commercial operations when a rabbit is sold either as a pet, for meat, or for fur. Since (to the best of my knowledge) you do not use the actual hides of Angora for anything, it is much more likely that such a rabbit would be shaved and then sold as meat to a butcher. I would suggest that the original section either needs sources to be cited, or it should be revised to reflect a less biased representation of the facts. 
Ftwrabbits (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culling 

message: Hey guys, I found this article quite interesting and the quality in general to be very good. Still, I can't help but feel it's not in line with Wikipedia's style standards.
I got the feeling like this was almost a guide for people interested in owning or breeding these rabbits. For instance, it talks about the amount of fiber in their diet (maybe okay), but says people should check the side of feed bags to confirm the fiber content. That second part is not encyclopedic knowledge about Angora rabbits. That might be encyclopedic about feed bags, maybe.
One give away is the number of times this article says should (10 times). It seems to me like encyclopedic entries talk about what is, not what one should do or how a certain breed should appear. So in many ways, maybe this is just a matter of wording?
Like I said, very informative article. Just worried it might not be in the right style.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodomontade (talk • contribs) 05:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Problem - Is this a guide? 

message: Why is there a citation needed for the statement that these rabbits generally resemble a ball of fur with a face?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.32.215 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Angora rabbit. 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/20040225150423/http://home.pacbell.net:80/bettychu/ to http://home.pacbell.net/bettychu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified