s1m17 Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I wasn't sure if this was more suited to the Fur Den forum or off topic.. So I just chose off topic. Try searching for Fur Clothing on http://www.wikipedia.org. If you read the part on Common Sources it gives (what I believe) a highly biased description of the methods used to obtain fur from animals. "Many of these animals are caught in painful traps and suffer for days before they are killed. Animals raised on fur ranches are no luckier. Since there are no laws to govern how they are treated or killed, millions of animals are raised in tiny, unsanitary cages with no veterinary care." I always thought Wikipedia was meant to have articles which were as objective as possible, this seems highly biased. What does everyone else think?
Worker 11811 Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I agree. Their article shows a definite bias! But, not to worry! Wikipedia is modifiable. Somebody before you entered the information on that page. They may have had an unconscious bias or they may have had an agenda. I can't tell for sure. It's often impossible to determine the mindset of someone you don't know, at least a little. If you find some information inaccurate or objectionable, you are free to submit changes. If those changes are informative and not inflamatory the editors of Wikipedia will allow it to pass, virtually the way you wrote it. If there is information that is inaccurate or if it is inflamatory the editors may either veto your post, all together, or they may modify it in some way. Go ahead and post some changes. It can't hurt!
White Fox Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Now I know who changed it. You beat me to it you bugger! Always great to be beaten when it is a case like that! You did a much better job that I would have. I knew instantly when I read it that you "knew the rules" of how to go about writing it where as I didn't. Course they will probably change it back tomorrow. Question. When a fact is not verified, how long can it stay on there? W
Fox Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Hopefully indefinitely. As for the "rules", you just have to write it in a very general and (seemingly) unbiased way, and keep it sounding professional.
s1m17 Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 Muuuch better now, well changed fox. Maybe the dangers of synthetic fur should also be there somewhere.
Fox Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Now read the 2nd paragraph in the "controversy" section. Man I love this! Anything else I should put in there?
Foxy Lady Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Awesome! Very well put together and thought out. I am proud of you as usual.
Fox Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Yeah, I'm getting to enjoy this as well. I'm glad you approve.
Worker 11811 Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 There is a link at the bottom of the page: "Caged Fur: The Inside Story". An obvious plant from some activist. How about an alternative link? PS: Here's a DIRECT LINK to the page in question.
Mr Barguzin Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 I do find it rather interesting that the fur farming link should go on about measurements of cages etc. How many fellow members owned birds, or mice, or ferrets or rats or whatever animals that required them to be kept in cages/hutches? Is thuis the humane society's way of saying all such activities are bad? Just curious.
White Fox Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Am I not correct that they think that humans should not have pets? (Dam, I forgot. Now I gotta throw out all of my foxes!) W
Fox Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 PETA does indeed follow that philosophy. "Total animal liberation!"
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now