Talk:Fur

The Naked Ape

Just a quick question - why is The Naked Ape(Book) in the first section? I understand that it's to mean humans, but it seems like a very round about way to say "Humans".

Popularity

Hi Rosemary. Fur is in fact popular in cold countries, and it's an overstatement to say a majority of Canadians oppose fur.

We can see that fur is popular simply by noticing that it's still sold and people buy it, e.g. my mother and my aunts have fur coats. I think my aunts would object to being called "historical", but that's beside the point since my sister-in-law and a few cousins also have fur coats, so the popularity has crossed the generation gap. If I lived in Montreal instead of Tokyo, I'd probably wear a fur hat in January. You'll find similar fashion trends in Scandinavia, Russia, and even Mongolia.

Second, most Canadians do not oppose fur. There may well be a majority that favors humane treatment of animals and the protection of endangered species, but that does not mean that a majority actively opposes fur. After all, I'd say at least 90% Canadians consume animal products each day either by eating meat or wearing leather.

Vincent Vfp15 02:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is true that some people in Canada wear fur, but they are a small minority. I'll dig up some stats on the percentage of Canadians who believe killing animals for fur is wrong later—I need to get some sleep. Rosemary Amey 06:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please have credible statistics handy before you make your claim.Raryel (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Only as an example, this government survey shows that in 1992 a significant number of Canadians supported the seal hunt for a variety of uses including fur. Granted, it's not a survey on the specific question of fur use, but it's probably indicative of the attitude Canadians have in general.

Also, while it may be true that only small minority of people own fur coats, that doesn't mean that people who don't own one oppose the owning of one. Only a small minority of people own a Ferrari, and I do not own one, but that does not imply that I oppose those who do. The Bay wouldn't be selling fur coats if there were no customers to buy them.

Finally we should keep NPOV. I personally find nothing wrong with wearing fur, but I did not eliminate the statement that there were those who did. Wikipedia is not a forum for championing causes, pro or con, yours or mine. Cheers, Vincent 07:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreee with Vfp15 that this should be kept NPOV. The problem with the approach of this discussion is that trying to define and qualify popularity is very hard for some of the reasons he states. However, the number of animals killed for fur, the value of fur imports, the retail sales of fur could all be used to indicate whether or not there is a trend in those specific areas of fur. I recall a recent survey re. the seal hunt that a majority of Canadians oppose inhumane killing of seals for fur, which is a specific sub-category of popularity, I guess. In any event, the Cdn gov't publishes statistics about fur use and sales, so I think it would be reasonable to include that sort of info to indicate trends. Other views or surveys conducted by advocacy organizations could be included as long as they are clearly presented as the POV of the agency conducting/releasing the poll. Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I just removed the following txt becuse it exactly duplicates the text here. If you are the copyright holder or author of this text and can vouch for that fact, we can replace it on the main page.

Eighty-five percent of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive on fur factory farms. These farms can hold thousands of animals, and the practices used to farm them is remarkably uniform around the globe. As with other intensive-confinement animal farms, the methods used on fur factory farms are designed to maximize profits, always at the expense of the animals.

Painful and Short Lives

The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are also farmed for their fur. Sixty-four percent of fur farms are in Northern Europe, 11 percent are in North America, and the rest are dispersed throughout the world, in countries such as Argentina and Russia. Mink farmers usually breed female minks once a year. There are about three or four surviving kits for each litter, and they are killed when they are about half a year old, depending on what country they are in, after the first hard freeze. Minks used for breeding are kept for four to five years. The animals—housed in unbearably small cages—live with fear, stress, disease, parasites, and other physical and psychological hardships, all for the sake of a global industry that makes billions of dollars annually.

To cut costs, fur farmers pack animals into small cages, preventing them from taking more than a few steps back and forth. This crowding and confinement is especially distressing to minks—solitary animals who may occupy as much as 2,500 acres of wetland habitat in the wild. The anguish of life in a cage leads minks to self-mutilate—biting at their skin, tails, and feet—and frantically pace and circle endlessly. Zoologists at Oxford University who studied captive minks found that despite generations of being bred for fur, minks have not been domesticated and suffer greatly in captivity, especially if they are not given the opportunity to swim. Foxes, raccoons, and other animals suffer equally and have been found to cannibalize each other as a reaction to their crowded confinement.

No federal humane slaughter law protects animals on fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. Because fur farmers care only about preserving the quality of the fur, they use slaughter methods that keep the pelts intact but which can result in extreme suffering for the animals. Small animals may be crammed into boxes and poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some animals wake up while being skinned. Larger animals have clamps or a rod applied to their mouths while rods are inserted into their anuses, and they are painfully electrocuted. Other animals are poisoned with strychnine, which suffocates them by paralyzing their muscles in painful rigid cramps. Gassing, decompression chambers, and neck-snapping are other common fur-farm slaughter methods.

Austria and the U.K. have banned fur factory farms, and the Netherlands began phasing out fox and chinchilla farming in April 1998. In the U.S., there are approximately 324 mink farms left, down from 1,027 in 1988.

---

We can't really replace it on the article either, because it's very opinionated. It's an essay, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Rhobite 05:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, not all of it. Elf | Talk 06:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's standard-issue animal rights sensationalism, and there's no reason to believe that it describes typical conditions in the fur industry. Rhobite 06:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Some of it, but material such as "The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are also farmed for their fur. Sixty-four percent of fur farms are in Northern Europe, 11 percent are in North America, and the rest are dispersed throughout the world, in countries such as Argentina and Russia. Mink farmers usually breed female minks once a year. " is neither POV nor sensationalist, etc. Elf | Talk 20:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cut text not from copyrighted source

I originally submitted the text re: factory farming furs. It's not sensationalist, but accurate and sourced material from PETA's fur fact-sheet (which is not copyrighted, that's why it was found on other fur site). Can I resubmit it? I can delete any emotionally-laden words, but "painful" is really a truthful description when it comes to be electrocuted.

It's from PETA (here, as you say)--it's almost inherently POV. At a quick glance I don't see anything on their site that says the material is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. Can you provide some info to that effect? And certainly it needs to be edited to be NPOV, not PETA-POV. Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As there certainly seems to be a POV dispute already going on here in the talk page, I added the template at the top. I know nothing about the fur industry, but I'm willing to bet the two English external links are biased and I don't read German.

How appropriate is external link on the horrors of fur farming in an article not about fur farming specifically but rather about fur in a broader context? AmyBeth 23:18:57, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

Rabbit image

I've added an image of a skinned rabbit to the page and would appreciate some comments on it. I feel the image is justified in terms of NPOV, because it illustrates the reality of removing skin from an animal. However, I'm worried about it aesthetically, because it's upsetting to look at (although not the worst I found, unfortunately: there are images online of animals who appear to have been skinned alive). There's often a fine line with images between being educative and gratuitous, and this one straddles that divide, so feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is a gross picture; I noticed when it was added. But it certainly seems to be an accurate picture and is probably informative. I'm going to split fur farming off from the article on fur to attempt to move the touchy issue of animal rights away from the basic definition of what "fur" or "a fur" are. Elf | Talk 05:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it myself in the end, because I couldn't stand it any longer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fur farming fork

I don't agree with creating fur farming to move the issues off this page. If this article dealt only with fur, it might not be so bad, but it deals with fur as clothing, and to make it NPOV, we have to mention how it becomes clothing. It's not just the methods that are controversial, as the article now states, but the fact of it. And it's not just fur farming: animals are trapped too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for moving it is that "fur" and "fur farm" are two separate entities or concepts that should each have their own encyclopedia articles. Instead, we had a huge article about fur farming when the title of the article is "fur". In fact, fur farming (not fur farm, my mistake) already existed and it's been overdue to move the material from here to there. The fact that there is controversy over fur farming doesn't mean that all the details have to be on the page about "fur" as well. (Any more than, for example, all the details about hitler's atrocities have to be on the page about his dog, Blondie.)

I see that there are 2 possible definitions for "fur"--the original meaning, which is the coat of an animal, and "fur", something that someone wears (e.g., see dictionary defn). Both of those meanings are addressed here at the moment, although I could see that fur (clothing) could be spawned as a separate article. And even for that one, details about fur farming wouldn't go on that page, because it's addressed under fur farming, (e.g., any more than details about trapping would go on that page), although info about the controversy over wearing fur and a summary of why there's a controversy would certainly belong there.

Make sense? Elf | Talk 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to have been slow to respond, Elf, but I didn't see your reply. I see what you're saying, but there's a sense in which you're suggesting we should have POV forks. If this page were very long I could see it, but it isn't, and omitting the facts about how fur as clothing is procured would be POV. However, I take your point about fur and fur (clothing) perhaps needing to be separated. But would that leave this article too short, I wonder? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is challenging. I went to the What links here list, and there are a dang huge lot of articles that link to fur. Many simply refer to an animal's fur. Many refer to what would be fur (clothing). But there's that gray area in the middle. For example, in the otter article, the first two occurrences of the word "fur", simply referring to the animal's coat, are NOT linked, but it IS linked when it's mentioned that it was "trapped for fur", which is an interesting tidbit of linking info. I just don't see that someone reading that dinosours did or didn't have fur, or that a dog's coat is its fur, or that rubbing fur on something makes static electricity, or that cats lick their fur, furinstance, is expecting an article about fur clothing or the controvery surrounding it. But that gray area bothers me somewhat needs a clean way to accomodate that--where would we point those links? Based on the number of links to it, this is a semi-important article, so I don't want to be sloppy about it. So I'm going to go away and stew on this a bit. (BTW, I don't think that a short article is a problem--there are lots of 'em here, and if it's "too" short, that's what stubs are for. :-) ) Elf | Talk 01:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

By all means, take some time to think about it. I'd have no problem splitting them into Fur and Fur (clothing). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

To merge carotting here

Support Donama 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fish-fur

'Fish-fur' is a slang term used in the Russian Army for the fake fur often used on winter clothing and the ubiquitous ushanka hats. So-named because it does not come from any recognisable animal, artificial fur is often a by-product of the petrochemical process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.98.246 (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Animal protest industry"

"Animal protest industry" is a neologism that I've only seen one person use. It is obviously highly POV. -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to second this. The implication of "animal protest industry" is that the only people who protest the use of fur are people who are just trying to make money through the (cynical) use of appealing to people opposed to animal cruelty. - Xwwxw

I'm baffled by how one could find fault with the term "animal protest industry".

It refers to organizations who focus on a single narrow issue (animals & cruelty) and whose only final product is protest as opposed to orgs that have a more holistic and inclusive agenda. It also acknowledges protest as both product and revenue generator.

I've seen the term in a number of reports over the years and it seems to me to be the one that fits the best. I am very open to suggestions for other terms that might make the same important distinctions if others find them more fitting. I've read a few more but none that spring to mind immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuroTrash (talk • contribs).

Unless you can find reliable sources using the term in context it doesn't belong. Please stop adding it to Wikipedia articles. -Will Beback · † · 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "animal protest industry" implies that animal rights activists are motivated by money or are being insincere and conniving. "Animal rights activists" or "animal rights advocates" both seem OK to me. "Activists" seems slightly more neutral - I'd support that change. Rhobite 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has organized a number of protests, I can tell you that they cost money, they don't make money. Anyone who gets involved in organizing animal rights protests for money will be quickly disappointed. The vast majority of protest participants (and members of the animal rights movement in general) are volunteers (and donors), not paid employees. Rosemary Amey 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the same editor is adding similar material to "Linda McCartney".[1] Input would be appreciated. -Will Beback · † · 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is way past when the original discussion was started, the term "animal protest industry" through google pulls up a number of various results. Wolvenmoon (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fur Clothing citations and references missing

The Fur Clothing section makes various assertions that are not referenced or cited. These assertions are not supported by text in the main article. The "citations missing" template has been added to flag these omissions. As examples:

• "they view fur use as primarily cosmetic and therefore unacceptable"
• "many furs fetching comparably higher prices at auction today than they did before the heyday of the protests in the 80s"
• "it is still considered by many as a luxury item"
• "World fur centers are those of Kastoria, Greece, Frankfurt, Germany, New York and China." -- although the (now) referenced articles for these places may make this assertion, I didn't find such evidence on scanning them.

Fuzzyeric 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolition

Can anybody please describe the origin of the fur?--Dojarca (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to academic sources on the subject, but that is an excellent question. When in the course of evolution did animals develop fur? We know now that some dinosaurs were feathered. Any paleontologically savvy people able to discuss this? I think it would lend meaningful content to the article and help steer some focus way for fur controversy.72.49.43.222 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

i second this, the evolution of hairs from scales is a pretty interesting subject, and certainly more in line with what one would expect when coming to an article about fur rather than talking about fur clothing.Tuseroni (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture and fetish section POV

I came into this article after looking up Keratin. The picture is a shock picture - much like a picture of a scalp when looking up hair - and the fetishist section is irrelavant. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot article does not have foot fetishism as its own section, and the foot article has much more information.

There is also a large amount of political bias present in the third paragraph. The controversy section is not neutral, either.

Much of this article should be split in different articles. Trapping and skinning both belong in their own articles, and if anything fur fetishism belongs in human activities or a "Fur in culture" section. There is some useful information in here, but not enough. Wolvenmoon (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also removing the picture of the red fox furs. My (qualitative, I know) reasoning is that showing animal skins on a page about fur is the same as showing corned beef as the primary picture in this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow . If anyone has a microscopic image of some fur they'd like to post up, I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolvenmoon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image prior to seeing this discussion. However, why are you discussing an article with yourself? I disagree with your rationale for the image removal. I don't understand how an image of fur is POV in the fur article. Please exlain. Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be akin to putting a picture of petroleum jelly in the Dinosaurs article - yes, the dinos became the oil which produced the Vasoline in your bathroom cabinet, but this isn't an article about the end product. It's supposed to be about the stuff still attached to living animals.

An image of skinned animals is POV considering the rest of the article. If this was showing a fur coat, which is the end product, then it wouldn't be POV. This is equivalent to showing the body of a skinned cow on the cattle article. I don't want to start an edit war, so I'll leave it alone and suggest that someone that has the resources to get a microscopic image of fur released under CC licensing please change out the skinned red foxes. Edit: Forgot to sign! Edit 2: I've looked at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox and there is no picture of skinned foxes, even though fox fur is highly valueable in the fur trade. I think it would be better to replace the skinned foxes with an image from this article. Wolvenmoon (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched on Commons and found loads of images. As an intermediate step, I have moved the fox image lower and replaced the article's top image with a photo of fur on a live dog. Hopefully this will assuage the controversy. There are plenty of other images on Commons (see the link provided); please feel free to add others that are relevant to the article. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia article - the point is to inform users. Clearly, fur has a use in commercial clothing (controversial or otherwise); we should include content which illustrates this. Readers can decide for themselves if they ethically approve of fur clothing. Nimur (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

non-human!?

hair & fur are exactly the same thing.

the differentiation of usage is more cultural than scientific/factual.

see here for something reasonably definitive:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-difference-be

also, it is not unheard of to speak of human fur.

more to the point, fur is used more as a term considering the coat of hair overall, or leather with hair still attached.

this really needs cleaning up, & i don't have time to do more than try & tidy the intro right now.

not all fur is a dual-coat of guard hairs & ground hairs either; that's far too broad a generalization.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lx 121 - this is an interesting article, but does not include much that should be included in this article. Are you going to suggest that porcupine quills be considered fur since the article states that they are a type of hair? Some concessions have to be made for common usage, sense and understanding, and since hair is generally easily differentiated from fur, including anything more than a brief mention to this would be misleading. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "Fur" article only about the use of fury pelts in clothing, and the controversy about this?

This article is mostly devoted to the use of mammal fur in clothing and the controversies about this. This seems odd to me, like as if the article about "eggs" was just about culinary applications and free-range or vegan pro/con perspectives. It seems like the article as it presently exists should be renamed "Fur coats and the animal rights debate". Does this seem strange to anyone else? Tomyhoi (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also a fur clothing article. What other uses for fur were you considering besides clothing? For example, the silk article mentions uses from paper to parachutes, but I'm not aware of fur being used for either of those. If you can reference other uses for fur, please do so. Bob98133 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History of using fur, special uses of different furs, quality of different furs and so on? I believe, the controversy belongs main to animal liberation movement?--Kürschner (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have new reliably referenced material feel free to add it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on sable mentions the use of fine hairs of the sable pelt in paint brushes. Furs and hides are also used as furnishings or bedclothes (example, a bearskin rug). Furs, beyond a mere luxury commodity, play an historical and symbolic role in, for example, the traditional attire of the British peerage, or in the tall ceremonial hats of certain military regiments. Furs have been represented in a stylized manner in European heraldry. This article could certainly be expanded in many relevant directions.72.49.43.222 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fur can also be used in tying [flies]. Some of the most common materials are deer/elk hairs for spinning hair. Straight up fur of various types can also be used for dubbing, though more often it's dyed. I don't know that it serves as a proper citation, but both Cabelas and bass prooffer selections specifically for tying. Just saw that people needed more uses...here's more. Thedanomyte (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If anybody could translate from German, in the German Wikipedia he will find all you need. For example in Pelzarten (kinds of fur) or Pelz (pelt) or Kürschner (furrier). Regards, the --Kürschner (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this odd too. The primary use of fur is as part of animals' bodies. It's overly human-centric to make the discussion of fur all about the human use of it. Munci (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata - Meta-links

The meta-links seem messy. Next to the general topics on

• Hair (Q28472)
• Skin (Q1074)

There are more specific ones like:

• Fur (Q197204)
• Hair (animal) (Q2438930) which I today renamed from Hair

I reckon that Fur and Hair (animal) are the same thing. But then the issue comes with local differences.

In Dutch there is a disctinct difference between:

• Vacht - furry hairy animal skin (attached to animal)
• Bont - furry animal skin detached from animal

In Spanish a different distinction between

• Pelo (animal) - Animal hair
• Pelaje - Animal skin
• Piel - Human skin

The problem is that two or three would fit the English term 'fur'. A similar issue is coined on the Dutch Discussion Page by Kürschner (written in German). Perhaps we need more meta-categories. I really want you all to think about this issue and come with solutions. And feel welcome to actively edit the wiki-data categories. Timelezz (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In German we have three terms:

• Fell = the haired skin, at commons you find it under furs as fur-skins (mink fur-skins, sable fur-skins, ...). Also for the skin at the living furred animal.
• Rauchware(n) = the term used in the fur trade for raw and dressed fur skins.
• Pelz = fur, all fur, mainly for processed fur (coats, jackets, ...). Only in secondary meaning also for the skin at the living fur bearing animal.

Maybe it helps? --Kürschner (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to create sub nodes for 'Fur': Fur (fashion); Fur (skinned); Fur (skin). Agree? Timelezz (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My knowledge in English is not good enough to vote here, not even to help you, leastways it seems to me not wrong. But is it optimal? Lemmas with (brackets)? Is there no other possibility? --Kürschner (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the wikidata-sitelinks, not lemmas. But you are right. It is probably better to have the title without the brackets. So Fur, will have the three subnodes with the same name:

   / Fur 
   - Fur
   \ Fur

All these three subnodes will get a different description (fur as fashion; fur as animal skin; fur after skinned (ready for trade and production). Am I forgetting one? Timelezz (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I just remembered the word "peltry"? --Kürschner (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I made some adjustments. Can you verify whether it is now correct for Germany? Follow the sitelinks and read the common description. Timelezz (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What I saw was correct. --Kürschner (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is fur mammals only?

In looking at definitions of "fur" and "pelage", several indctae this term is used exclusively for mammals. This conflicts with the opening sentence of this article. Are there examples when "fur" is used for non-mammals?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The furriers also worked birdskins, see [2]. I think, this is no fur. All others are mammals. --Kürschner (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20080724045016/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/fedreg/001228-fur.htm to http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/fedreg/001228-fur.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fur heel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Circular definition

At least one reputable online source published an interview with an expert stating that there is no difference between fur and hair. The opening sentence of the page states that fur is hair. Nowhere on this page is it stated what the actual material composition of fur is, simply that it is hair. This is an essentially meaningless definition akin to saying stone is rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:C200:684:BDC5:964:E498:DF07 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References