Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Anti-furries section

I removed this section because: 1. WikiFur is not itself a reliable source, and CYD and GHF are probably not either as per WP:RS, even as arguably valid examples of anti-furry sentiment, and 2. such a section is unencyclopedic anyway (simply having a large number of people not liking something doesn't mean we have to have a section about it, Neo-Nazism being an example. A Criticism section could be fine (assuming it's properly cited with reliable sources), but "Anti-furries" is a slang term for a very specific idea that has inadequate notability for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and doesn't really deserve mention here, let alone an entire section. -kotra (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made mention of the websites in the Public perception and media coverage section. Much more appropriate. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I have a couple of comments about your additions, even with adding them in a new section:

First, CrushYiffDestroy, on its own "about" page, says the following: "This site was originally created for our own amusement. . . and with no particular agenda or program in mind." This (from the primary source) seems to contradict your edit saying that CYD was "set up to oppose the fandom."
Second, I question whether "God Hates Furries" is really notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. If you look at the site itself, it gets updated maybe once or twice a year. It's mentioned in no sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable that I know of (if you can cite one, please do!).

It seems to me that this addition is mostly original research. —Dajagr (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree; we've talked about these sites multiple times in the past on this page, and this is about what we've determined. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I second Tony Fox's agreement with Dajagr, and have removed the sentence accordingly. -kotra (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not a furry myself, (although I will admit to finding some female furry artwork such as this attractive) I advocate the inclusion of a more detailed note about fursecution/anti-furry sentiment, simply because it is as prevalent as it is online.

While I will concede that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article does indeed include furry artwork which, as a heterosexual, I personally find vaguely disturbing, I have also been using the Internet for a long time, and have also probably seen more than my fair share of pornography of just about every different possible kind as a consequence. I do not, therefore, advocate fursecution in any way, shape, or form, and I also do not condone or agree with the idea that the high level of sexual diversity (which, I hope furries here will be willing to honestly admit apparently does genuinely exist) associated with furry fandom constitutes any form of lethal threat to humanity at large, as such sites as ED claim. I may not consider myself a member of the group, but the fandom does, for what it is worth, have my moral support.

Petrus4 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Furry subculture

This article should be moved to furry subculture, as that would reflect the nature of the subculture more. Fandoms might include Trekkies and Sonic the Hedgehog fantards, but definitely not furries. There are not many uniform things about furries, unlike trekkies. Canada-kawaii (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We are all fans of anthropomorphic animals. As fandom notes, a fandom is "a subculture composed of fans characterized by a feeling of sympathy and camaraderie with others who share a common interest." Furry fandom is (by this definition) also a subculture, but that does not mean the article name should be "furry subculture". GreenReaper (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few minor additional points: I did a quick Google search, and the difference was roughly 40:1 in favour of "furry fandom", so it seems to be the most common use in public. A search under Google Scholar was less definitive, as neither get many hits, but "Furry fandom" is slightly ahead (with only eight hits to three, the sample size is too small to have any meaning). In addition, the term evolved from SF fandom, so it has a degree of historic precedent. On an unrelated note, I'd rather that the term fantard wasn't used, as it seems particularly insulting to those being referring to. - Bilby (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you both, because fandom could confuse a few people into thinking that furries are a fan of a specific thing, not the extremely broad category of anthropomorphic animals. To solve this dispute, I say we change the name of the article to Furries. Nothing afterwards; just Furries. Or furry. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the reader is not willing or able to read the very first line of this article, I do not think we need to worry about whether or not they are confused. GreenReaper (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fandom" just means a bunch of people who are fans of something. It doesn't have to be a narrow, specific thing, it can be broad too, hence Science fiction fandom. -kotra (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same thing. :) If anything, SF fandom is broader than furry fandom. The idea of calling the page "Furries" seems ok, and I can certainly see strengths in that view, but in the end I don't think it offers and really significant advantages over Furry Fandom, and to some extent conflicts with another common use of the term, where it is used to describe small furry animals. (When I was digging up references I needed to add the fandom to distinguish between the two, as so many hits had nothing to do with furry fandom). Thus, in balance, I prefer leaving things as they stand. - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned SF and fantasy. Just to toss out a couple more examples, I'm pretty sure anime fandom uses the term. Gaming, comics, LARP, and SCA might also, and none of those are based on any one or a relatively small set of works. Furry fandom is not alone in that regard. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I say we solve this dispute by just calling the page Furries. That's what almost everyone calls them, so I say that furries is the best term. Canada-kawaii (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one advocating that the name be changed. The article is not about the people; rather, it is about the fandom, so "furries" not not an appropriate term. (It does discuss the people, but only insofar as they are a part of the fandom.) The phrase "furry subculture" is, as demonstrated by the aforementioned Google search, a term in significantly lower usage, so it is also less appropriate. Currently, I believe that "Furry Fandom" is the most appropriate title for the article. —Dajagr (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a compromise name for the article, because you don't call the page on Star Trek fans "Star Trek fandom", you call it "Trekkies". Given that logic, "Furries" would be the only acceptable option. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a parallel situation. Trekkie is about Star Trek fans, not Star Trek fandom. This page is more parallel to Science fiction fandom, which has already been mentioned, as well as Harry Potter fandom, Tolkien fandom, and Doctor Who fandom. —Dajagr (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't personally call the page on Star Trek fans anything, because I don't consider myself to have enough knowledge of that fandom. This page is not about the fans per se, but about the fandom that they are a part of. That is why that article uses the word "fan" and this article uses the word "fandom" - and, presumably, why it has a huge list of famous Star Trek fans. GreenReaper (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

...then we should have a page on the actual furries themselves, and one on the community/fandom/subculture. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to write a new article. However, keep in mind the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Trekkies have films written about them. Although furry fandom at large receives some notability (see the references in the article), my experience is that less is written about them individually. Nevertheless, if you can find verifiable and notable information about the fans, a new article would be interesting to see. —Dajagr (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do Wikifur, ED and large numbers of FA and DA journals count as verifiable by consensus between them? 75.157.136.144 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you read the Wikipedia verifiability policy, especially the part about self-published sources. However, the short answer to your question is no: ". . .Personal websites, open wikis, . . . forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." This is why I suggested that both notability and verifiability would be a challenge for this article. Furthermore, you also should avoid original research when creating such an article. I'm certainly not telling you not to write such an article, but I think you should be aware of the challenges that will face you in writing it. Personally, I believe that the information in this article is sufficient for the topic, especially since the disambiguation page for Furry already points to this article, but that's just my opinion. —Dajagr (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, you'd treat Furry Fandom exactly as you would Star Trek and Anime. For any cultural phenomenon there should be a page on the parent subject, Star Trek, Anime, Furry Entertainment. Then a page on the relative fandoms, Trekkies, Otaku and Furries. The reason you can't do that with Furry is because it is an unprofessionally documented fandom. The best information available is from blogs and gossip sites. While what little media accounts you have to work with are made working with the same problem. Thus they are poorly researched and often sensationalized for ratings. Not really encyclopedic.

The medium of entertainment itself is not notable enough to have had a great deal written on it in professional publications, which is why there is no Furry Entertainment page to start with. Furry Entertainment is a mixture of titles and characters from many unrelated genres. Those other genres are written about, and the Furry titles just mixed in. Furries draw out these titles and characters setting them together in a new, and as yet officially unrecognized or officially defined group. No doubt this will be done in the future, but as of yet there's no way to document this without original research.

Hence you are in the somewhat tricky situation of having a recognized fandom for an unrecognized entertainment phenomenon. And Wikipedia just doesn't leave you the option to do it right. Thus, if your Furry Fandom article doesn’t seem to work, it’s because it lacks the parent entertainment page to give it the balance the other fandom articles have.

I have a suggestion to get around this problem. Since Wikifur is not so restricted, why not work in conjunction with Wikifur to perfect a Furry Entertainment article over there. Then this article would be free to focus on the fandom for that type of entertainment. That way you could do the original research. You could develop a consensus of just exactly what you’re dealing with, and maybe even alleviate some of the controversy. Perri Rhoades (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is one significant difference between furry fandom and those other fandoms you mentioned. The others are fans of works created by someone else such as a corporate entity - publishers, movie studios, etc., and most fan-produced works are derivative of these, whereas in furry fandom, a much larger portion of the works are original works produced by the fans themselves. There are some major commercially produced works, of course, such as major animated films and commercially published novels, but it's the fan-produced works that really give the fandom a lot of its character.

I don't know if "furry entertainment" would be recognized as such by anyone not familiar with the fandom. I've told people before that the use of animals in stories and pictures is ubiquitous enough in works targeted at children that I don't really count those as furry; it's when they're used in stories designed to appeal to adults as well as children, or especially in works that are not appropriate for children, that you're into the realm of furry entertainment (and I'm not just referring to sex and nudity with the latter; it could also be on account of violence, profanity, thematic content, etc.). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The claims that Furry Fandom is not "professionally" documented, "officially" (?) recognized, and that the best information comes from blogs and gossip sites is demonstrably false. Furry fandom has actually appeared in a cornucopia of reliable professional media sources such as newspaper articles, television news reports, and books. So here's a better suggestion: Perhaps instead of inventing new terms we could use the nearly thirty-something years of information on Furry Fandom that is already well established? Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction published in 2006 by award-winning author and fandom historian Fred Patten has a particularly solid definition and description of the fandom. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to learn more about what Furry Fandom is all about. —Xydexx (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply put, in the first sentence, Furry fandom is a fandom or subculture] devoted to..." (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Because "furry fandom" does not mean "furry fandom or subculture", it just means "furry fandom". If this article was titled "Furry fandom and subculture" or "Furry (fandom and subculture)" then certainly the article should cover both. But currently, the article is titled "furry fandom" and that's what it's about. I see no reason to change that. -kotra (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The notion of "furry subculture" would more closely match "furry lifestyle" than "furry fandom", though I have little doubt there are those who would draw a distinction between a lifestyle and a subculture. One can try to think of examples of subcultures that are not fandoms; goths and punks come to mind. When you think about furry fans who have taken their interest to that level, what you're more or less talking about are furry lifestylers. So, notwithstanding the "subculture" vs. "lifestyle" question, one would think a reasonable resolution is to have an article on furry lifestyle. But, alas, there used to be one, and it got AfD'ed with the result that it was trimmed down and merged into furry fandom. Take it as you will... --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for stirring up a year old thread, as Mwalimu said above, "The others are fans of works created by someone else such as a corporate entity - publishers, movie studios, etc., and most fan-produced works are derivative of these, whereas in furry fandom, a much larger portion of the works are original works produced by the fans themselves.". This is actually a difference worth noting, I think. The guests of honor at furry conventions (well, except for several recent ACs) are other furries. Kage likes to say at general-purpose science fiction conventions "You are fans of George Lukas or Miyazaki, we are fans of each other". I wonder if he said it on record somewhere so we could quote. --Cubbi (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is also worth noting that many fans are also artists. I believe Mark Evanier said: "actually, they're fans of each other" after being asked by Rob Paulsen what furry fans were fans of. RP9 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you need a reference for that, try here. GreenReaper (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Watership down?

To me, as a self-confessed non-furry, Watership Down seems a curious choice as an example of furry prehistory. This work is anthropomorphic only in that the animals are intelligent and communicate by speech. They are anatomically and behaviorally rabbits, and can't communicate with humans. I would have said that both the book and the film make an effort to keep as far as possible from furry territory.

As better examples, I would have expected for example Alice in Wonderland, the works of Beatrix Potter, or even The Jungle Book. These significantly predate Watership Down, and also fit the genre much better. On the other hand, maybe Watership Down resonates more strongly with the Furry community because it was released at the time when they were at the right age to be deeply affected by it. If that is the reason for the reference however, then this link should be more explicity noted.

Mind you, I know nothing of furrydom. I'm willing to accept that I'm all wrong, but I do think that if that is the case then the article is missing some explanation. Any thoughts? • TheBendster (talk) 22 October 2008, 11:41 (UTC)

It's not that they look human, it's that that they act like people - not necessarily human people, but with at least close-to-human-level intelligence. They make plans, they solve problems - they show love, fear, and hatred. Intelligence and emotions are the characteristics which we cherish in humanity; without them, an animal with the shape of a human is a monster or a cripple, not a furry. A society of intelligent ants would be more anthropomorphic than that, though they might remained unable to communicate with humans.

Watership Down is highlighted because it is a well-known, serious portrayal of the concept of anthropomorphic animals. It is not comedy (Tom and Jerry), nor metaphor (Maus), nor high fantasy (Alice in Wonderland). It is saying "these animals are people too, and if they were intelligent, here is the story that they might tell."

The Jungle Book and Beatrix Potter's works are in a similar vein, and are arguably within the definition of "furry", but they share a decidedly more moralistic and less mature treatment of the topic - they feature talking animals, used (in part) to make a point to children about real life. They might count, but for all their financial success I wouldn't consider them as significant to the topic as Watership Down. GreenReaper (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Watership Down isn't an allegory of something, in the same way Maus is. At the very least it's an allegory of certain human behaviors in terms of wars and strategies. That being the case, I would wonder why Animal Farm wouldn't be more significant in terms of age. Perri Rhoades (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"On the other hand, maybe Watership Down resonates more strongly with the Furry community because it was released at the time when they were at the right age to be deeply affected by it."

Really, this is pretty much it, it my experience. For those of us coming into the fandom just as the Internet was becoming popular, Watership Down and (to a lesser extent) Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH were the first exposure we had to anthropomorphic fiction that dealt with serious subjects like murder, disease and such. One reason they're more influential on the fandom than, say, Animal Farm, is that the characters are the central focus of the story, rather than simply being caricatures for allegorical influences. They have many human characteristics, but are not simply "Corporate Businessman Stand In #1" or "Military Power Figure #15." They were people (albeit in the form of animals) dealing with very serious problems. Making them animals made the problems a bit more abstract, without diluting the figures themselves.

I'm rambling, sorry. The point is, that this has been my experience, however you're unlikely to find a reliable source for such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yiffstar redirects here, but no mention of it is present

why if "Yiffstar" redirects to this page, it isn't even mentioned at all? --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia?

Shouldn't it be mentioned Furries obsession with child porn they call "cub" Softpaw Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapztick (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it's strictly an internal debate at this point, though you could try scraping up some sources from WikiFur's relevant news articles. The decision of some (but not all) conventions to ban it and Fur Affinity to allow it could also be relevant, along with the original sources' stated reasoning for each decision. The fact that Softpaw is printed in Canada might also be contrasted with lolicon's illegality there (Canadian law says "person", but their interpretation of the law makes specific reference to human children). GreenReaper (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that only a relatively small subset of furries are fans of this sort of cub art, which also has some outspoken opponents (as the references in GreenReaper's reply will bear out). It would be highly inaccurate to say that all or most furries are obsessed with it, or that the ones who are are pedophiles. --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No sinebot, that would be your mother. jk but seriously the ratio is the same as non-furries so it need not be mentioned. Unless you want to add that to the humans article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.56.46 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

...Did you just compare a subsect of a fandom with a race? Are you really implying that being a furry is a racial issue? Incredible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.41.24 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see mention of any race (other than the human race) in the foregoing discussion. --mwalimu59 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fursecution redirects here

Fursecution redirects to Furry fandom but I don't see the word "fursecution" on this page. If someone was looking up information about fursecution you won't find it here. But, you will find it on WikiFur. Maybe the things that redirect here, if it can be found on WikiFur should also provide a link directly to the parts of WikiFur that describe what you are looking for. --zzo38(✉) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone's looking for information on "fursecution", they're unlikely to find it in Wikipedia, period - it's simply not a notable concept. A general article on the furry fandom is the closest you're going to get. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where would the link to WikiFur's Fursecution article be? I can't think of any appropriate place. -kotra (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fursecution is what we call the hating of furries by trolls. You don't need to mention it because if you put two and two together (fur + execution = fursecution), you can understand what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.56.46 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually "furry + persecution" but either way it's facepalm-worthy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Picasso a furry

Can someone please add the fact that Pablo Picasso drew furry images too? Evidence can be seen here: http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/greekroman/images/PabloPicasso-Minotaur-Caressing-a-Sleeping-Woman-1933.jpg 83.78.5.83 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's reaching just a little bit. We have no reference stating that this is furry imagery, and there is no agreement within the fandom as to whether those things created before the fandom existed as such should be called furry. GreenReaper (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, just drawing one furry image does not make one a furry. Nearly everyone has drawn something between animal and human at some point in their life, even if just as a child. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not a furry image, or a furry, jesus, it's a mythical creature and the representation of it's myth! You shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia if you don't grasp such basic concepts!82.79.21.209 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While I concur with the previous respondents, there's no need to be crass about it. Wikipedia does after all encourage contributors to be bold, and more experienced contributors to assume good faith in dealing with less experienced contributors if their contributions aren't overt vandalism. --mwalimu59 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It doens't look like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.56.46 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-Consistency

The list of role-playing games at the end of the article is dominated by older pencil-and-paper games. Surely they deserve a mention in-article in the Role=Playing section?

Bunnies and Burrows was published in the earliest days of role-playing games, for instance, there were two editions of the game based on the Erma Felna story in the Albedo comic, and anthro characters appear all through the history of these games--Traveller has the Vargr and Aslan aliens.

This stuff may be turning into history, but I think that's a good reason to document it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.80.91 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem - Furaffinity redirects here

Is there a particular reason why furaffinity redirects to this page? Is it not possible to make a page dedicated the site instead on wikipedia? EwanMclean2005 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, FurAffinity redirects here: Wikipedia article titles are case-sensitive. But yes, of course it would be possible to make a dedicated page; however, it is questionable whether or not it would be desirable, given that we must consider notability in the context of a general encyclopedia, not in the context of something like WikiFur. Loganberry (Talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it Fur Affinity has been deleted several times. It would be nice to have something about it here, but what? The site admin deliberately avoids contact with the media. About the closest you'd get is an interview like this - and, of course, Furry101 itself is not considered a reliable source (more's the pity, since they interviewed me about WikiFur, too). GreenReaper (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sod it, I'm having a stab at a "websites and online communities" section anyway. Wish me luck. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Site inclusion

I removed FurTube because I don't feel it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned at this time. It doesn't actually provide much in the way of services (it's primarily a collection of furry YouTube videos at this time), has few (if any) active members, and is itself on a third-party video hosting service. Indeed, YouTube itself may be far more relevant to mention.

In general, if there aren't sites that truly stand out as highly popular examples (to the level that McDonald's and Burger King stand out in the U.S. fast food hamburger industry), it's probably best not to mention any. This is why I didn't mention any specific forums. GreenReaper (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For the curious, some Alexa traffic ranks for the sites currently noted (probably wildly inaccurate after about 500,000):

furaffinity.net: 7,144
fchan.us: 22,724
yiffstar.com: 30,040
vclart.net: 74,581
lulz.net: 101,672
furnation.com: 112,394
furtopia.org: 167,260
furnation.ru: 304,889
wolfbbs.net: 428,480
furbase.de: 439,277
artspots.com: 585,502
furryne.ws: 660,844

furbid.ws: 754,094
furbuy.com: 784,319
furspace.com: 794,043
pounced.org: 1,039,075
wikifur.com: 1,183,600 *
fursuit.org: 1,748,174
antropomorfos.com: 1,854,510
furry.de: 2,131,808
bluefurry.com: 2,144,274
myfursona.com: 3,059,571
francefurs.org: 4,781,367
furteantimes.com: 9,016,126

* Only counts Spanish, Russian, Polish and Chinese editions

Of course, traffic isn't the same thing as significance. Still, it might be worth mentioning e621.net (47,343), macrophile.com (266,504) and pregfur.org (684,041) as well. GreenReaper (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues addition

I'm not sure about this edit by User:ISD - is it really necessary? It's backed up by a WikiFur article and a cite from Furtean Times, which I'm not familiar with (and can't investigate right now); I was fairly sure WikiFur wasn't considered a reliable source, at least. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't use WikiFur as a source, and I'd say Furtean Times wouldn't qualify as an RS either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You could use the references included in the WikiFur story. ISD (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not yet been brought up by external commentators, but the issue continues to be noteworthy, as one response to the nomination for Softpaw #3-4 and Finding Avalon for the 2008 Ursa Major Awards shows. ISD has the right idea about using references; many of the WikiFur News article's sources are primary, but that is sufficient to verify the positions of AAE and Eurofurence e.V. (as opposed to accepting their opinions on the law as fact). GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I should bring up the fact that I wrote that Furtean Times article, if that's an issue. ISD (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One benefit of wiki articles - you can see the history. I was hesitant to start that article myself because I'd expressed an opinion relevant to the topic. GreenReaper (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to feel the sources as presented are insufficient, as they're user-generated content, but whatever the consensus comes up with, I guess. Referencing seems to be a moving target in some areas. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What ISD is getting at is that the sources presented may be ineligeble, but the sources they are based on may be useful. If a convention representative bans a comic in an official announcement, we can cite that announcement to support the fact that they said it. GreenReaper (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The greater issue here is that this isn't a topic unique to the fandom. The legality of such art is something of a larger issue, and the impact on the furry community is rather tangential. I'd say it's a subject that should be dealt with in relevant Wikipedia articles about the legal issue, with a simple mention & link to said article(s) here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean articles such as Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors ? --Cubbi (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The question of legality per se doesn't really concern us; readers should be given enough to understand the issue as it relates to the fandom, leaving the details of countries and court cases elsewhere. However, the impact of such work within furry fandom - such as the aforementioned banning, or that Fur Affinity held a referrundum on such works and ultimately allowed them - does belong here. By themselves, any one of these things might not be worth mentioning, but together they reveal an issue that is. The trick is to avoid giving it undue weight — but just ducking the issue seems equally inappropriate. We got dinged on our GA review for lack of coverage of recent events, and I'd certainly expect to see it in a comprehensive history of furry fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly see any evidence as to why this should be explored in depth rather than just by one or two sentences. In the grand scheme of things, what relevance does this have? Does it relate to anything about the history/origins/what-most-people-who-call-themselves-fans-thing?

As a side note, God only knows how many anime characters cross this moral line. Sailor Moon (character) is only freaking 15-years-old and would possibly have gotten in legal trouble had she lived in certain parts of the U.S. But is that covered in vast detail in those relevant articles? No.

Also, Holy shit. Why I am on Wikipedia when it is past 2am. I need to stare at the wall to relax or something... The Squicks (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS News Report

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/02/national/main5056419.shtml

There you go. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

... and? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GreenReaper actually used that ref in the article a short time ago. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the addition. Now, I'm sure that noone here can really dispute that the majority of people are not zoophiles. But what GR added to the article was though real-life zoosexual activities are not generally condoned.

That I can't see as supported by this citation. It says that (a)It's not "normal" for furries to have sex with animals and (b)Whitson was arrested because two of his friends turned him in. These points are fundamentally different than the assertion that most furries oppose zoophilia. His two friends certainly did, but it's a non sequitor to then say that most furries think this way.

They are two fundamentally different concepts. You can not undertake in something and at the same time not be opposed to it. A straight person who declines a proposition doesn't then automatically become a homophobe. (It's not an exact analogy by any means, but you see my point). The Squicks (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, (and this is my personal opinion which I would never add to any article) it seems to me from my [admittedly] extraordinarily limited contact with furries that the widespread attitude is basically "So What? So, X, Y, Z person is a zoophile. Whatever." or something like that. In short, nearly all furries don't do that sort of thing but most don't care about those who do. The Squicks (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If he then turns his own friend into the police for sodomy, he probably is, though. :-)

I grant that it doesn't demonstrate "most". However, the paragraph as it stands implies (to me) that the sexual activity associated with zoophilia is typically met with a "non-judgmental attitude". This was clearly not the case here, and it is what I was attempting to clarify. Perhaps something hewing more closely to point a) would be more acceptable, as evidenced by b) and the prosecutor's own authority? GreenReaper (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of alternative wording/phrasing do you have in mind? The Squicks (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

←Before we start debating wording, etc., I have to wonder why we're including this in the article at all? What are we adding besides a WP:BLP1E issue? I've removed the quote from this page, due to these BLP concerns, and I don't see why we should be including this in the article at all yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E only relates to that an article shouldn't be kept for one event unless the article is named after the event and WP:BLP1E doesn't relate to using a source of a single news event for an article. Also zoophilia is supposed to be about romance and bestiality is pure sex. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E does still apply: we're reporting a single accusation of bestiality against this person in this article. And it's still not clear what this citation adds to the article on furries. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The news report makes a statement of fact, that sex with animal is not 'normal' for furries, as well as the other information about a person. Thus, I believe that (a)Quoting it here on the talk page in full length may be questionable and (b)Using it as a source for that given statement of fact is fine.

Suppose, for example, a reliably sourced article by a right-wing conservative about Barack Obama that is mostly very hostile but also makes a true factual claim. Such as: Obama is fluent in the Mongolese language as well as speaking excellent English. Would there be any objections to including this fact into a Wikipedia article? Nope. The Squicks (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "statement of fact" is a statement of opinion by the two people making the accusation against him. Mind you, I agree with that opinion but, I feel it's not necessary to cite in the article, weighed against the fact we're sending people to read an article about a man accused of having sex with dogs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement by a representative of the United States government, which makes it different from- say- what some anonymous furry posts on her Facebook page. It's an opinion, yes, but not a trivial one.

we're sending people to read an article about a man accused of having sex with dogs. But that what this Wikipedia article is getting at already. It says that <10% of so screw animals as a part of their furry-lifestyle [or their orientation, if you prefer that term]. Anyone who clicks a citation beside that statement is prepared to read more about animal sexual abuse. You have a perfectly valid point that this man accused is innocent until proven guilty and has the right to privacy as well. But that's a separate issue from whether or not the news report can be cited for other things. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not convinced, but I won't edit-war over it, either. Unless someone else objects over it, I'll let it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Norwegian article to list

{{editsemiprotected}} Can somebody add no:Furry at the end of the article, in things like these: [], so people can find the Norwegian? So the Norwegian article appears in the left list at the bottom of the page. LinooneGraut (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done GreenReaper (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Canine and Feline Furries

Shouldn't there be a note in here about canines--such as wolves and foxes--and felines like cats being the most prevalent choices? There is a carnivore note, but nothing about what TYPE of carnivore.

96.49.66.117 (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)WildGriffin

WikiFur has a list of most popular phenotypes - in fact it has two, one derived from its own database, and one from the pounced.org personals site. I'm not sure either would count as a reliable source, though. Perhaps the stuff from pounced.org - there's an archive of the stats page from July '06 with a sample size (those specifying a species) of 2897. I also have corroborating evidence from a Guest of Honor question and answer session at Midwest FurFest 2006:

Linnaeus: "What's the most common [thing you're asked for]?"

Spunky: "Canids."

WhiteFawkes: "I'd agree with that. Lots of dogs."

Kyoht: "Coyotes. All the time."

GreenReaper (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox

Does liking the video game series Star Fox make you a furry? -(Guest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.62.212 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But it's quite possible if you start writing stories about the adventures of Star Fox, focusing on the world of anthropomorphic animals in which he lives—or find yourself hunting for scantily-clad pictures of Krystal late into the night. GreenReaper (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No more than liking Bugs Bunny cartoons makes you a furry. Really, being a furry mostly involves enjoying anthropomorphic animals in general, ie. preferring to see such characters in your entertainment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only if you want to fuck Fox. rzrscm (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, rzrscm, it really doesn't mean that at all. Please don't troll talk pages if you are able. Thanks. RP9 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able. rzrscm (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, actually it does.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what an ad nauseam argument is I suppose? RP9 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank the gods that we're not arguing about this...rzrscm (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yiffstar redirect

Just wanted to alert readers that the redirect of Yiffstar to this article has been brought up in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 15. --mwalimu59 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added it as an external link to the article, as it is unreasonable to have the VCL but not Yiffstar; both provide a similar service but Yiffstar is now more popular. GreenReaper (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that addresses the problem though. The idea would be to have more information about what ever it is your looking for, not just a link to the site. For that, you could just search Google or use some other Internet search. p.s. The "both provide a similar service" part made me giggle. RP9 (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the least we can do is provide a link where people can find out more. Any more than that and you start getting into verifiability issues - apparently the mere mention of such sites in the body text is "spam" without a third-party reference. GreenReaper (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that neither Yiffstar nor VCL are notable enough to be linked to. VCL used to be big, but by now FurAffinity takes its spot as the art archive that everyone uses. And I don't see what we gain for this article from linking to Yiffstar. --Conti|✉ 10:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern with having FA without the VCL or Yiffstar is undue bias. Granted, VCL is a different type of site, while Yiffstar has drifted towards FA over time. Yiffstar is still the place to find most adult stories, though - FA's handling of stories is comparatively poor. I would be happier about not listing these sites if they were on DMOZ's listing, but the furry categories on there have barely been updated in a decade (apart from conventions, which has additions from EarthFurst). I've just applied as an editor for furry regional groups - they seem to have lost the application I sent a year ago - but it'll probably take some time to get the access needed to make major changes to the furry supercategory, even if I do get in. GreenReaper (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that took less time than expected! If you've got a link you feel deserves to be listed, feel free to submit it. GreenReaper (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mental heads

A friend of mine said that liking this is akin to having a mental disability or retardation, since I've lived a fairly sheltered life I don't know whether to agree or disagree. From a neutral stand point it does seem slightly insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.184.86 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That and other similar types of claims have been made here a number of times before. If you're suggesting that it should be added to the article, our response is the same as it always has been: If you can find reliable sources to back up the claim, you're welcome to include it in the article along with your citations. --mwalimu59 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

plenty of religions got aspects many consider crazy, many sports are thing for suicidal people in some people's opinion, politics is filled with sociopaths depending on who you ask, people waste money with lottery tickets and the huge majority of them never gets any back (they would profit more by depositing the price of the ticket on a savings account or even just keeping it under the mattress), some people like to attach metal objects thru their skin and flesh, some intentionally starve to the point of being a skeleton wrapped with skin while others inflate themselves to death with burgers. Heh...Madness...? Dude...This is Sparta!!!! --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you just liken a fetish to religion and politics and buying lottery tickets? And due to your ignorance, I have to point out that Anorexia is associated with having mental problems. You just fired all over the place hoping you'd hit something didn't you?--Mattbrown04 (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The examples given are for contrast; to give perspective, merely because what is insane or mad is subjective. The whole idea is to show that there is dissimilarity in what is considered insane among different people; it is meant to fire until something is hit - with a given person, hence the multitudinous examples. But this seams to have misfired, you are assuming that this comparison means that fetishism, religion, politics and buying lottery tickets are on the same level when in fact the idea is to see that they are all different and different people consider them differently. TiagoTiago did not imply anything about fetishism, thus the accusation you are making is also based on a false premise. RP9 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the examples were to make it seem like the issue is more deep than it needs to be by associating it with real world cultural phenomena that has affected everyone throughout history. Fetishism has nothing to do with anything at all with anything he mentioned. This is called a Straw Man argument and it's a shame you fell for it. Your POV is showing.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have misread me. I was pointing out that your argument that he "liken a fetish to religion and politics" is fallacious because he never associated anything with fetishism, only you did. I could have called this a straw man argument but I assumed you were making a blind assumption instead of purposefully trying to make a faulty argument. I'm a little confused, are you accusing me of falling for your "straw man argument" by me pointing out that it is "based on a false premise", which seems contradictory to me, or are you referring to something else? RP9 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

←Let's take it to your own talk pages, please. This debate doesn't have anything to do with improving the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)