Talk:Fur clothing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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."
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.
[edit] 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.
