Talk:Bile bear/Archive 1

Archive 1

Content from PLOS ONE

• Firstly, it is not fair to exclude contribution from non native English speaker simply because grammar is not good enough. If grammar is imperfect, then proper course of action is to correct that grammar, not to delete the contribution out right.
• Secondly, my contribution is justified (albeit poor grammar), because I sourced content from verified site, in this instance, an academic articles, which have higher wikipedia verifiability than news article (while article from small advocacy site does not). Issue of whether the opinions or facts stated in such academic article being POV (or more to point, objectionable to anti bile farm group) is irrelevant.
• Thirdly, the view expressed in my content is what is asserted by Chinese government and certain conservationist (albeit being "an necessary evil"). It is one thing to object or argue against others' POV. It is entirely other matter to censor it.
• Lastly, I eliminate contents from advocacy site. There are enough articles in major news paper (and few academic articles) which discuss and report bile farm. Removing contents from advocacy site and replacing it with contents from news media and academia improve the quality of this article. Doing opposite degrade it. Vapour (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can the content verified from non advocacy sources?

I understand that this is quite emotionally charged issue but that is not a good excuse to use advocacy site as source. There are enough report about this from legitimate media.

The sources, including the World Society for the Protection of Animals, are reporting incidents that they directly observed. Whether or not you consider them to be "advocacy sites," there is nothing suggesting that their direct observations of bears is factually inaccurate. I am aware of no Wikipedia policy stating that sources that report directly observed phenomena cannot be cited if thos sources have expressed views one way or the other as to the morality, or lack thereof, of a practice such as bear-farming. If you are aaware of such a Wikipedia policy, please cite it. Otherwise, it would be helpful if we can refrain from deleting sourced citations. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Pleas read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if source (claim) that it report directly observed phenomena, it cannot be cited if it is not verifiable from reliable source. Reliable source are basically media and academia.

Wikipedia etiquette means that it nicer if uncited (or badly cited in this case) is not deleted outright. Instead, should be added so person who added that content are given time to source that content from verifiable source. I did just that.

So I would be happy if you could find valid citation to back up some of uncited or incorrectly cited contents. But also, I would appreciate if you return the favour and not delete my edit outright. Vapour (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply stating that the treatment of bears is inhumane does not magically convert something into an "advocacy source". Pretty much every mainstream source discussing this, notes that the bears are kept in appalling conditions and treated inhumanely. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

More pictures available

On Flickr, I found more photos that can be used in this article. They include not only bears in cages, but also the products and showrooms. For anyone wishing to add more visual content to the article, please at the photo link below and scroll through the "Soggydan's photostream":

• gallery
• bile product
• more product

Otherwise, please keep this article NPOV. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture Captions:

I think there might be a mistake with the captions of the two images at the top of the entry. The bear in question is described as being rescued from "Huizhou farms, Vietnam," and the image page sources a China-based website as its source. The problem, however, is that Huizhou is a Chinese place name (a city in Guangdong province), and I have a suspicion that the picture was most likely taken at a Chinese bear bile operation. In case it helps, the Vietnamese phonetic equivalent of Huizhou is Huệ Châu, but I don't think such a place actually exists in Vietnam. 67.244.50.24 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks. The source is the Asia Animal Protection Network, which visited the farm. You can look through the source material here, in case we haven't described it accurately. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

October 2008

I volunteer for an Animal Conservation Fund called Free The Bears (FTB) partnered with Wildlife at Risk (WAR). The fund, based in Australia does work throughout (and provides funding for) South East Asia and India to help protect the endangered species of Sun Bears and Asiatic Black Bears. It is a high profile fund that does not only fundraising, but works with Governments in various countries to see the change of laws and out-of-date practices to help eradicate poaching and the illegal use of bears for bile farms and the restaurant trade. I would like to include the FTB site as part of the Bear Bile articles (and any other articles of relevance) to help educate people about what can and is being done to help protect our endangered species.

A particularly relevant / current piece of news is in Vietnam where FTB and WAR are working closely with Southern Vietnam provincial authorities and the Forestry Protection Department to confiscate bears from bile farms, as well as provide education and awareness on laws and the end of bear bile farming. Construction on the first sanctuary in Southern Vietnam has now commenced (land donated by Vietnamese Government).

Work in India to help the 'dancing bears' has also had a huge impact on the poverty stricken Kalander Gypsies as part of a full rehabilitation package. See www.freethebears.com.au for more information. I'd appreciate some feedback to see if I can get approval to include some content on the wikipedia articles.Freethebears (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say who I come from (check my IP address), this article seemed fairly netural. Biles from bear are not part of the mainstream TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), moreover, TCM are almost involved (and are initially involved during the early days of these traditions) with herbs. Those so-called "righteous" (I would said over-zealous) ang-moh (white people) should reflect themselves before shouting any fruitless anti-racism, equality or whatever (for the sake of shouting or other personal motives, these group made me ROFL!!! 203.116.22.138 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Altough I don't dispute the harsh (to say it mildly) conditions that the bears are put through, it would be good for encyclopaedic value if this article show some information about the therapeutic value (if it has any) of ursine bile.

Non encyclopaedic use of the term "chemical"

Furthermore, I would like to point out that this sentence "Bile is a chemical that is produced naturally in the liver and stored in the gall bladder." is missleading, as "bile" is no chemical at all. It's a secretion with various different substances (chemicals, if you like) in it. Maybe someone could correct this and add a link to the article about bile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile BTW, this article states the composition of bile. 84.166.205.53 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This site does not refer to any medical sources to explain UDCA, the actual place of bear bile in TCM and conditions of bears used in this industry. Perhaps someone in the Wikipedia world can make some changes to update this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.240.144 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this for a neutrality check -- it's not a bad article but I feel it may have some issues in terms of strong language against. I don't dispute this is a sad act; it just needs a good rundown by someone outside of the animal rights movement. Carson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any overtly slide to either side. But one thing for sure, TCM are almost, always, herbal medicines (though more oriented to "gradual resolution" unlike western medicines "shock therapy" - i.e. less side effects than western ones). These animals' elements are not TCM but just one of the culture (and not mainstream) in a diverse Chinese cultures. Hence I'm not supportive of this unnecessary tag. 203.116.22.138 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For a few basic facts, the active ingredient in bile is ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and bears are the only mammals able to produce significant amounts. It is believed that bear bile can be effective in reducing fever and inflammation, and by cooling the blood, and detoxifying the body. UDCA, however, can and is being produced synthetically by pharmaceutical companies. At present, pharmaceutical UDCA is taken by patients who suffer from disorders of the biliary system and liver. However, active research in the treatment of neurological disease, eye disease and heart attack are quite promising. Although used in traditional medicine for thousands of years, bear bile farming was not introduced until the 1980's throughout Korea, China and Vietnam. The increasing surplus of bear bile (bear farm numbers are now in the thousands) has seen its recent inclusion in products such as tonics and shampoos that have no basis in Traditional medicine at all. I agree that the 'do-gooder' attitude alone is not enough to educate people - a balanced, fact-based message needs to be sent. There is however plenty of fact already out there that supports what these organisations are trying to achieve if you choose to look for it. More reason to include such information - and those who are actively involved - in these forums.Freethebears (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)