Talk:Bile bear

NPOV

Added POV tag; unnecessary bias towards animal rights. Take a drink every time you see the word 'crude' or 'cruel'. Also, it's unnecessary to detail the various methods of bile extraction. – Acdx (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There were two examples of "crude," now removed, none of "cruel," one of "cruelty," which is used to describe how certain people see it. Why do you see the bile-extraction methods as unnecessary? This is an article about bile being extracted from bears, so it would seem odd not to mention how it's done. The section would benefit from a source, but perhaps you could add one yourself, or request it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for lack of citations. – Acdx (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, SlimVirgin! – Acdx (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.50.24 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion: fuck Chinese medicine and all its cruel, caveman, scientifically illiterate practices. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a separate article on conditions and extraction of the bile. and leave this to describe what the bile is used for and the alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.170.105 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I second this. As it is, it's an article about bear bile farming, and how nasty it is. Indeed it is, and there should be an article about this. The current article should be about the product itself. I've added a paragraph linking to articles about ursodeoxycholic acid - the chemical name for the main stuff in bear bile - which does in fact have real 9and now Western) medical value. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's because the article is about bile bears, not bear bile. The fact that bear bile is medically worthless compounds the atrocious treatment of the animals, but it would remain atrocious even if bile were to cure cancer, AIDS and the common cold. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bile bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617163427/http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn:80/sandt/BearBileFarming.htm to http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/BearBileFarming.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of image

An editor recently removed an image here[1] with the edit summary justification that it was essentially a duplicate image. I propose that the image is reinstated. The deleted image differs from the other images as it shows the entire bear in the confines of the cage. The other images show only the empty cages or a close-up of the head of a bear in a cage. I believe the removed image adds information to the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I weakly agree. It's true a couple of the images are similar, but they do serve three different purposes. File:Bilebear2.jpg primarily serves to illustrate the condition of the bear, File:Bile bear.jpg primarily serves to illustrate the cage (in use, showing relative size), and File:Sun Bear bile extration 01.jpg primarily serves to illustrate the facility. If we were using the latter to illustrate the cages, I'd say it's that one that should be removed, but I do think they serve complementary purposes despite being similar subjects. Right now the article isn't overloaded with images, so it doesn't seem so problematic to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

I have a feeling a bear-bile farm will be featured in Cartoon Network's We Bare Bears at some point in the future, and I do believe the bear-trio were orphaned specifically by bile-hunting poachers (or at least Grizz and Ice Bear were since both grizzlies and polar bears are targeted for bile, but I don't recall about pandas being hunted for that), plus the episode "Burrito" has ignited speculation and there were actual poachers in "Yuri and the Bear", and further more the threesome may also hold personal hatred towards it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should be blanked and replaced with this Zanahary (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bile bear. 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://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6742671.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015002358/http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/pdfs/parryjones_and_vincent1998_newscientist.html to http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/pdfs/parryjones_and_vincent1998_newscientist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506132555/http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/features/misc/bearbile_wspa1.html to http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/features/misc/bearbile_wspa1.html

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) 03:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bile bear. 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://archive.is/20120709172732/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2911817 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2911817
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723031149/http://beargallbladder.net/bear-gall-bladder/ to http://beargallbladder.net/bear-gall-bladder/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722003454/http://www.aapn.org/endangered.html to http://www.aapn.org/endangered.html

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) 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Logical disagreement

One section asserts that there is no evidence of medical benefit. A second section asserts that there is a "pharmacologically active ingredient."

If there is an active chemical then there must be a biological effect. If there is no effect, then there is no active chemical.

Suggestion- Change: "The pharmacologically active ingredient contained in bear bile and gallbladders is ursodeoxycholic acid..." To: "Bear bile contains ursodeoxycholic acid, which is claimed without evidence to have medical benefits."

67.5.170.72 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

well, any claim, especially of medical benefit, need to be cited with a reliable source. Otherwise it should go. I think the changes suggested sounds good. Be bold. Nessie (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently ursodeoxycholic acid has some medical benefits, but big pharmaceutical companies don't get it from bears, they synthesize it. [2] Many animals produce products that benefit humans; many humans nevertheless want those animals to be treated in humane ways. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bear milking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bear milking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 6 § Bear milking until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)