Talk:Fur farming

message: There are 4 references to PETA in this after it's been explained once?
DrkBlueXG (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The first instance should be wiki-linked and the acronym stated in parenthesis. Additional instances can use PETA w/o wiki-link, since acronym and link were previously included. Good call, DrkBlue. This happens because sections are added and edited independently w/o reviewing the entire article. I also removed a few red links. No real need to discuss edits like this (although not a bad idea on controversial article), but you can be bold and make edits with good edit explanation. Bob98133 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronym of PETA

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  MLA is compatible with WP:CITE.  That's what I'm most familiar with. Bigj 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: I flagged the main page with the  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)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: How can we say that cat and dog and mink furs are the only farm-raised furs.
-the descriptive rhetoric is very biased as it does not provide an accurate description of humane practicing fur farms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaindannduece (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain what you are talking about? If you have changes to the article to suggest, please explain and supply references. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Various types section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems like someone whose a furry, I mean werewolf, wouldn't be too fond of animal furs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA-Video 

message: 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.'
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV Edit 

message: I think the Chinchilla section missed out a few facts about chinchilla fur farming and provided mostly information about chinchilla in general. Chinchilla is a much smaller creature compared to foxes or minks, therefore in order to make an average coat or jacket, about 100 chinchillas are killed to obtain enough fur 
In the farm, chinchillas are usually killed by electrocution, which often fails to kill the animal instantly and entirely. In many cases the animal is still alive and conscious while being skinned. There are other ways of killing the animal before pelting such as neck breaking and carbon-monoxide poisoning. 
Chinchilla fur is considered to be the softest in the world, softer even than that of the legendary Tibetan antelope, 30 times finer and more flexible than human hair, and its softness comes from copious amounts of natural oils secreted by the animal. Each chinchilla hair follicle will produce more than 50 hairs (a human's produces only one) and although the chinchilla has problems keeping its fur clean, it has no trouble from parasites. Fleas and other creatures cannot live in chinchilla fur because they would suffocate. These are a few seasons why chinchilla fur is highly profitable and luxurious. Reportedly, a coat such as Madonna's can sell for £35,000 and take up to 60 chinchilla pelts to make. 
On August 10 2004, PETA sent a letter to the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) demanding that it begin protecting chinchilla after PETA investigators on a fur farm in Midland, Michigan, saw chinchillas who were being electrocuted, causing painful seizures to the animals’ hearts, and having their necks snapped while completely conscious. The letter also protested the use of electrocution on chinchilla as this method is not effective and humane on small animals and accused other killing methods such as neck breaking as inhumane. (<5kg)
On February 05 2005, the MDA replied that the authority of MDA extends only to facilities regulated by the department such as animal shelters, pet stores but not fur farms, but did contact and arrange investigation in conjunction with U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials to Midland, Michigan facilities  --Wickedpedia.ngm (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinchilla fur farming 

message: I removed vandalism carried out by  at 2008-07-17T17:33:10 because the spurious list consists of words and transliterations of foreign languages that mean "dog" and "cat". 
Dogs
#Asian wolf
#gae-wolf
#Pommern wolf
#China wolf
#Sobaki
#Mongolia dog fur
#goupee
#loup d'Asie
#dogue de Chine	
#Asian wolf - does not exist
#gae-wolf - "gae" means "dog" in Korean
#Pommern wolf - does not exist. 
#China wolf - What's up with wolf in the dog category?
#Sobaki - means "dog" in Russian
Cats
#
#rabbit 	
#goyangi
#gatto cinesi
#maopee
#katzenfelle
#chat de Chine
#natuerliches mittel
</ul>	except two, all means "cat in Korea/Italian/French/German
#rabbit do not exist in German (most people will understand the English meaning)
#German "Katzenfelle" = cat fur skins
#German "natürliches Mittel" = natural remedy; natural method
Wikipedia needs to be more wary of this kind of childish behaviors spreading hoax and false information.--Caspian blue 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism lasted for about one year 

message: Actually, I didn't fix the image as I said in the edit summary. It looked alright in the section preview but there seems to be something more wrong with this page that breaks images. Could anyone knowledgeable have a look?--Nakerlund (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Managed to fix it on my own :) --Nakerlund (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent: Images broken! 

message: I have again removed commentary material from the fur commission. I have no objection to the material being included provided a third party reliable source can be used. A commentary by an employee of the fur commission is essentially a blog. There are no fact checking or references. If the fur commission supplies references, those could be used instead of their commentary. Surely, notable news has been reported elsewhere, so some other source would be far better. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sources 

message: Hi. Seeing as this is a very common criticism of fur (esp. with PETA vids), I think it would be VERY useful to have a little something about it. ESPECIALLY a stat or estimation as to how common it is (ie, 5% of fur is done this way, or whatever). It can't be too common, and under the section about China an expert 'does mention' that skinning animals alive is counter-productive and certainly not the norm- but I'd STILL very much like to see some statistics. Thanks! Masternachos (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANIMALS SKINNED ALIVE! 

message: Arguments to continue the fur farming in 2013 included that it is a legal profession. Counter argument is that it is not legal in Sweden. Why not? The opposition claim that the animals have not opportunity to their natural behavior and the animals suffer in the cage. The activists have repeatedly in many years filmed the sick animals by producers. It seemed for me in many cases, but not always, that the producers were more concerned of the publication of pictures than the animals in concern. One argument is that if Finland ban fur farming it will be done in China. Counter argument is that Europe has different view of human rights and animal rights. Finland does not accept e.g. capital punishment. Watti Renew (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The initiative to ban fur farming was introduced to the Parliament by the Land and Forest  Committee.  It seems for me that the Land and Forest  Committee is the most active supporter of the fur farming.  I ask was this neutral? In my opinion it should have been prepared in another Committee, e.g. Juridical Committee. How does Finnish administration apply this? Watti Renew (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland 

message: The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) is not a credible independent source on this. If this citation is included, then a counter point needs to included as well. 
A lot of farmers have contested numbers likes this saying they would make their operations unsustainable  if they were true. Its a very one sided opinion that is presented.
Judderwocky (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fur farming. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F05%2F13%2Fwmin13.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574462/fur_industry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518102802/http://www.vshine.org.cn/news_detail_project/newsId%3D571.html to http://www.vshine.org.cn/news_detail_project/newsId%3D571.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) 13:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fur farming. 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/20080312054532/http://fur.elehost.com/frequent_reasons.html to http://fur.elehost.com/frequent_reasons.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224095553/http://old.furcommission.com/news/newsC72.htm to http://old.furcommission.com/news/newsC72.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160911131732/http://www.postimees.ee/v2/3776755/padar-maaelukomisjon-otsustab-karusloomakasvatuste-saatuse-kiiresti to http://www.postimees.ee/v2/3776755/padar-maaelukomisjon-otsustab-karusloomakasvatuste-saatuse-kiiresti
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224095413/http://www.efba-eu.com/video.html to http://www.efba-eu.com/video.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) 15:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read in this discussion that the article some years ago resembled PETA propaganda. I can very well imagine it was like that. Now, however, the opposite seems to be the case. Look at the section: "Farmed mink production cycle". Why does the article mention the "ample aspen bedding" for the whelping females but does not describe the size of the cages the animals are kept in? Why does the article need (unreferenced) sentences such as "Ranchers are diligent toward creating an environment that prioritizes the welfare of each animal and allows them to live and function comfortably within their environment"? I don't really find this description balanced and neutral.--Oudeístalk  17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole section "Farmed mink production cycle" is undue and could be reduced to one or two paragraphs. At the moment it reads as a fur industry propaganda brochure. Happy to work on this with you Robynthehode (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: This edit looks correct to me: Without any data source it shouldn't be here. However it would still be nice to have a map. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a map 

message: OK, I am happy to answer questions related to the chemistry and biology of various methods, but not psychology. Especially not questions about how much pain, or otherwise, an animal might feel. Also not about activists or protests about various methods. It seems that vets have studied this including the effects of different gases, different concentrations, and pressures. The article is more for pets, and less for farming, but the effects of various gases should be the same. Gah4 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  psychology