Talk:Fake fur

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fake fur article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

changed section title from Eco-friendly advantages to Advantages of fake fur because the section in question has nothing to do with the the Ecological advantages of fake fur. --SirOdinFranz (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts by Kelly2357

As a new editor to Wikipedia (3 edits to date, 2 of them to this article), you have much to learn about wiki editing and etiquette. Please read WP:NPA. Who I am or what my point of view might be is of no interest or relevance; only the edits that I do. Please restrict comments in your edit summaries to the topic, not the editor.

The Fur Commission is a poor source for information regarding this topic since they have an obvious bias. That doesn’t mean they can’t be used as a reference but they are not an authoritative source about a product in competition with their goals.

I have replaced numerous fact tags with references. Prior to reverting these changes, please discuss them on this page.

Bob98133 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Looking good now Bob98133. Thank you for being unbiased. Kelly2357 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic biodegradable?

Hi, Kelly, I see you restored the line: "Like other plastics, these materials do not break down easily, unlike real fur which will eventually dry out and begin to deteriorate." I had taken it out because it was unreferenced for a long time. It sounds true, but without a ref I'm not sure it should be there. If you look at Plastic#Environmental_issues, you'll see that some plastics are biodegradable. So saying "like other plastics" would at least have to be changed to "like some other plastics". Best would be to have a real reliable reference (NOT PETA or Fur Commission) that would clear this up. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 1 edits

I have made several changes to the Disadvantages section. The references for this section were terrible - citing a fur store, and an Answers.com source which mirrors Wiki content and provides only circular references to support it. I have also changed some text to avoid plagiarism from the source. I'll look for new refs when I get a chance, but have inserted citation needed tags until then. Please feel free to insert reliable refs or change text to reflect reliable refs. Bob98133 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social status

This article really needs to mention the differences in social prestige attached to real fur and fake fur. Real fur has traditionally been owned by wealthy aristocrats, whereas fake fur seems to be for wannabes and working-class bogans. There could be people reading the article who don't realise this. It's rather disappointing to see such an obvious issue left out of the article. (Huey45 (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think that these days the social taboos of fur outweigh the social prestige. However, I doubt that you can find reliable references to support your point. For example, is the American first family wannabes for not wearing fur? I think you are trying to make a POV distinction that does not exist but reliable references WP:RS would prove me wrong. Bob98133 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was pushing it too far, calling them "wannabes", but real fur is certainly a lot more prestigious than fake fur and always has been. Surely you admit that much. (Huey45 (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I understand what you're saying, however, prestige is probably in the eyes of the beholder, so it's difficult to reliably reference or even define. For example, Pamela Anderson might claim it's prestigious to wear fake fur; while someone else might claim the opposite. It doesn't mean that either of them are right - it's just what they believe enhances their public image. I'm sure you can find some sources that support what you're saying, but I think they'd have to be balanced out with some sources that disagree to be NPOV. That said, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble unless there is some big dispute about this. Bob98133 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages

Should item 2 of Advantages be changed to simply read that fur farming doesn't kill animals? Fur is commonly harvested from other sources than factory farms, some animals (i.e: bears) can't even be farmed in such a manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.50.249 (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No references to durability. Depending on the pelt, real fur is way more durable than fake fur. Due to the durability and value of real fur, real fur is often reworked into a new items when fashions change, thereby considerable extending the life of the pelts. If an area of the item is worn it too can be repaired, and when done by a professional is not noticeable to the human eye due to way real fur items are created, stranding in mink coats for example. Hence real fur coats would be handed down from one generation to another. Also if real fur is dyed it to does not suffer from moth damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.94.104 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by 2 of the entries in this section: "Fake fur is not an animal-use product." "Fake fur does not require or encourage the breeding of animals in factory farms like real fur." What is advantageous about these? Why are they listed as advantages? It seems to be implying that animal-use products, or farms, are inherently bad, which does not strike me as a NPOV. I didn't simply delete them; I welcome some additional thought. But I did re-order them to have the 3 that clearly are advantages listed first, with these 2 suspect ones last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.103.44.87 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main content evaluation

I think the information could be enriched. Some relevant topics could be added, such as the classification of different type of fake fur. And the contrast is too simple. Also, advantages and disadvantages of it should be introduced more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.120.6.100 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Fur

On the term “fake fur”, in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia firstly gives the basic definition of it, telling us that fake fur is also called fun fur or faux fur. It is synthetic fiber which is designed to resemble the real fur to use as a part of the piece of clothing or decorations. Then Wikipedia introduces its source and history in short.

Then here comes the contents. The contents include six main parts: Uses; Advantages and Disadvantages; Use of Actual Fur; Fashion Designers Utilizing Fake Fur; References; and External links. So corresponding to the contents, the following contexts are detailed description and introduction of something around fake fur. The first part is Uses. Wikipedia introduces the main uses of fake fur. Faux fur can not only be applied to clothing, but it can also be used to make stuffed animals, fashion accessory, and home decorations.

      The second part is Advantages and Disadvantages. In this part, Wikipedia shows five advantages and three disadvantages of fake fur. The main content involves animal production, manufacturing, and decoration effects.

The third part is Use of Actual Fur. Wikipedia makes contrast between fake fur and actual fur, pointing that fake fur is cheaper than the real fur. The fourth part is Fashion Designers Utilizing Fake Fur. Wikipedia gives some design cases of fake fur. Also, some designers’ opinions of using fake fur are also shown. The fifth part is References. It includes all the references in this article. The last part is External links. It provides some relevant links about this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.237.161 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fake 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fake 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.furs.com/furcare/storage.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/WILD_Questions_and_Answers_about_Fur.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808155500/http://www.wearefur.com/latest/news/scientists-prove-nothing-beats-natural-fur to http://www.wearefur.com/latest/news/scientists-prove-nothing-beats-natural-fur

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fake 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026223830/http://www.thisnext.com/item/52E8C39E/Abercrombie-Fitch-Fur-Fleece to http://www.thisnext.com/item/52E8C39E/Abercrombie-Fitch-Fur-Fleece

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Miuccia Prada Statement

While doing some copy-editing and fact-checking, I noticed a previous editor incorporated a sentence under "Use by fashion designers," stating that Miuccia Prada said she was "bored" of genuine fur. Looking at the cited source, there was nothing in the article that suggested she said anything of the sort, however a somewhat dubious PETA article echoes this statement. Can anyone find a better source for this? I'm hesitant to delete this tidbit of information completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashew4 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing/bias issues

Hello all! I finished copyediting this article and have therefore removed the tag. However, there are still some pretty significant concerns that I have about areas of this article, primarily involving the sources. Many of the sources cited are opinion articles from popular science outlets, or from potentially biased sources, such as the American Humane Society. Because of this, I placed the additional citations tag at the top of this article. I think this article should be checked for bias overall. Thanks! Ecoevergreen (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]