Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

"(1) The phrase 'According to from Craig J. Forsyth' should be copy edited, and as with all general statements, the date of the publication should be included in the text to make clear the contemporaneous (or dated) nature of the underlying inconstant social science research. (We leave it to logging, dedicated editors here to review the whole of the content for undated, research-based statements in need of correction, per this example. Likewise with regard to use of WP-discouraged primary sources instead of secondary, and other poorer quality sources.)

(2) The red wikilinks should be scrutinised, article top to bottom, for their propriety and continuing presence, with removal of any of them inconsistent with WP:REDLINKS, i.e.

[A]dd a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable.

There are several that appear for individuals, organisations, etc. that likely fail to meet these criteria (cf. date of edit placing the content versus current date with regard to the "created soon" criterion).

_____

Note, in re: the earlier Talk entry argument suggesting most or nearly all individuals online know of the phenomena this article covers—a reality check. One is misguided to believe that this is the case, even if it appears in some source. This note is also germane to the question of the reliability of particular sources appearing above: the quality of surveys "published" (presented) online varies widely, from an expert social sciences perspective, and the fact that someone can conduct a survey of some sort, without valid statistical/methodological design, and get results from it into web-print is both certain, and immaterial as to whether the information conveyed in the survey is reliable and accurate to real social science phenomena. Hence, as in medicine and the physical and biological sciences, the question of the quality of the source with respect to the information it conveys is a crucial one. (The fact that some source says this is widely known begs the question of who is saying it, and if they are a reliable source of social science research.) The number of social science observables that were popularly believed to be a high level of incidence only to be found low (or vice versa) in the authoritative GSS NORC survey is legion. This point is made because I came to the site today to see if the article is presentable (or at least to find a citation-drawn definition that I could provide) in a forum, to an audience of individuals that are web savvy, articulate, and mostly learned and accomplished, that have no idea of that the behaviours described in this article are ongoing. The difference between an accurate and an inaccurate statement in this regard may be one of age stratification—e.g., "awareness of the phenomena is in the majority among active web users below the age of..." or some such—but such an age stratification would be characteristic of properly conducted social science research seeking to make such general statements.

The first two numbered items (copy edit and red wikilink matter) are the formal edit requests. The rest is an FYI comment (from a former research faculty member at a major U.S. university). My apologies for finding a way to present this, despite being non-logging. Cheers." 98.253.16.20 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a proper edit request per the template, it's more of a "fix the whole article" request. People are working on the article, and we're cleaning it up as we go. Please be patient. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Interests and other fandoms (request)

Looking at the stats listed reminds me that the sizes of the other groups being compared to vary wildly. For co-occurrence, the utility comes from knowing if the amount of overlap is greater or less than the percentage in the general population. For example, 21% of furries are considered bronies. The number of bronies is low, so this is high compared to the general population. 11% of furries are sports fans. The number of sports fans is high, so this is low compared to the general population. This is the kind of information I'd like to see in a section like this. 2001:56A:711D:4500:9D08:39:F75C:D128 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Gross misuse of a source.

The section on Zoophilia currently starts with the following sentence:

"Some critics have suggested this subculture may encourage zoophilic fantasies. Although Carmen M. Cusack stated this parallel may be unfair."

This entirely misrepresents what the source actually states:

"Though furries' lifestyles generally are not illegal or linked with crime per se, critics have suggested that this subculture may encourage bestial fantasies. Anecdotally it has been suggested that a furry fetish could lead to hands-on offenses with animals, just as hardcore fetishes can correlate with hands-on sex offenses... This parallel may be unfair, yet there are examples of furries fetishistacally abusing animals. In one case a furry crossed the line from fantasy into reality by dressing as a dog to have sex with a cat several times over a year-long period... The man was charged with six felony counts of crimes against nature and one misdemeanor cruelty charge.

I sincerely hope this dishonest cherry-picking of an isolated phrase from a source isn't repeated elsewhere in the article, because if it is, there is going to have to be some wholesale revision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: my mistake the reason I written it like that was because honestly this article is getting long and I didn’t want to add too much. I’m gonna try and fix it.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is the best way to word that statement? I’m open for a discussion about this.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I need to look into recent edits further before responding - there seems to be a systematic problem involving inappropriate sourcing, cherry-picking etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: also I saw that discussion you stated on WP:RSN you said something about zoophilia in the furry fandom needs better sourcing.

I’ll just say this most of the sources that touch on zoophilia and the furry usually just touch on how many furries say they identify as zoophiles or how the overall fandom views the topic. There aren’t many sources that go in depth on the concept.

Also keep in mind I’m a member of this subculture if I was cherry picking I wouldn’t add in the fact that some sources think the subculture promotes bestial fantasies.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You added the bit about 'bestial fantasies' after I pointed out that the source was being misused. And the source wasn't just discussing 'fantasies'. Anyway, as I say, there are systemic issues here, and I'm not going to get into debate about specifics until I've looked into the article further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay I’ll let you look into the article further.

But can you do me a favor and discuss each issue you find in the article before making significant changes or removing stuff.

Like if there is any issue just ping me in the talk section of this article. I currently have a good amount of free time right now.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to 'do you a favor'. I'm 'doing Wikipedia a favor', by looking into this properly. After I've done that, I will decide what I think is best - which may very well involve recommending a wholesale rollback to the state the article was in a few months ago. AndyTheGrump (talk)

@AndyTheGrump: Aren't we supposed to collaborate with each other? When I said can you do me a favor, all I am asking is for us to collaborate with me. Also your tone with statements like No, I'm not going to 'do you a favor'. I'm 'doing Wikipedia a favor sounds uncivil.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I will not be responding further until I have done what I have already indicated. At which time, I will almost certainly have to start an RfC. Until then, 'collaboration' is pointless, since I'm not interested in picking over individual issues with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: please read WP:CIV it states Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.

What you are saying here sounds like it is going against civility by purposely ignoring my concerns and belittling me.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is entitled to pursue WP:BRD or to open an RfC (assuming they complete WP:RFCBEFORE). I wouldn't worry about their tone. ––FormalDude talk 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: sorry I was honestly confused on what AndyTheGrump met earlier. I kinda understand their point now. I guess I was kinda guilty of cherry picking.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ll try and fix that mistake now.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add a concern that the phrase "Some critics suggest" is vague and weasel words. I suggest reviewing the section for this kind suggestive language while editing it. 2001:56A:711D:4500:9D08:39:F75C:D128 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess it kinda is weasel words.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend finding a specific notable critic to beef out the introductory paragraph. That way you can keep the paragraph, but make it look more Wikipedia like. 2001:56A:711D:4500:9D08:39:F75C:D128 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to remove the sentence. The source didn’t even say who these critics were anyway.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanctioning CycoMa1—is such appropriate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@AndyTheGrump and CycoMa1: I fear I'd have to agree with your view expressed at User talk:AndyTheGrump § Accusations of incompetence. I believe a proposal for community sanctions should be considered. Given we seem the two most concerned about the problem (perhaps including FormalDude), I'd like to hear your view on what form community sanctions should take. Here's a statement, which I'd like people to say whether they support or oppose:

1. Editors at furry fandom feel User:CycoMa1 needs WP:Mentorship, which may need to be involuntarily imposed. Another editor needs to OK their changes, which CycoMa1 will make in user draft space.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposal author. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

The line "According to therapist Xu Peng, role playing in the furry fandom can be a good way relive stress." Should read "According to therapist Xu Peng, role playing in the furry fandom can be a good way relieve stress. the article cited has the line as, "Xu said that role-playing in furry fandom can be a safety valve for stress." 41.246.25.110 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Side note - "way relieve stress" should also be rewritten as "way to relieve stress". Good catch! ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 08:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This article has deteriorated drastically in quality during the past few months.

As I commented in an earlier thread, in my opinion this article has serious structural issues. As I suggested, there are problems with questionable sourcing, and with what appears to be cherry-picking of sources to present a particular perspective. Most fundamentally though, as should be readily apparent when comparing the current state of the article with how it was say six months ago [1] is that it has gone from a relatively well-structured article on 'Furry fandom' to what I think can best be described as a semi-coherent bloated mess. Parts of it simply aren't written in grammatical English, or lack any tangible meaning whatsoever (e.g. "More intellectual furries would claim that the central themes of the fandom have existed for thousands although the arrival fandom is a modern occurrence", or "In Australia during 2006, for New Zealand in 2007.") Much of it seems to be written by someone with a very limited vocabulary, and no concept of how paragraphs work. It now consists largely of assertions about furries sprinkled together almost at random, contradicting themselves from one malformed 'sentence' to the next.

And frankly, I don't think this is fixable through copy-editing. This isn't how articles get written - not if they are dominated by a single contributor hopelessly out of their depth. In my opinion, the article should be reverted to the state it was six months ago. The article had issues even then (e.g. with a few questionable sources), but it was at least readable, and gave readers some idea of who the furries are, rather than presenting them with something that might make them think they were reading an AI-generated parody of fancruft. Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way I see it. Good intentions aren't enough. Competence is required. And when it is lacking, it is in the interests of Wikipedia - and in particular the interests of readers who want to learn about this particular subculture - to act to ensure that the article is at minimum actually readable, coherent, and explanatory. Which as of now, it quite simply isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

With the cherry picking accusation look I will admit I may have cherry picked once or twice for this article.

But for most part I tried my best to represent as many views as possible.

Like personally I’m against zoophilia and I’m a member of the furry fandom. If I was merely editing this article to push a certain view I would have removed the survey that mentioned 17% of furries identified as zoophiles and if I was cherry picking I wouldn’t have added the mention that a furry website in 2013 was defending zoophilia. So can you please stop saying stuff like with what appears to be cherry-picking of sources to present a particular perspective.

Regarding questionable sources. Keep in mind this article is about a fandom. It’s not like this article is about a medical topic.

Also I don’t think reverting to making it more readable is ideal. It might be more ideal to copy and paste this entire article and rewrite the whole thing in a sandbox.

Plus the older version of this article left out a lot of information and the older version had information that was outdated.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Or here’s an idea how about we create more articles. Like turn certain sections into there own articles.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Who are you proposing should 'rewrite the whole thing'? As for splitting the article, what purpose is that supposed to serve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I could rewrite the whole thing or someone else could do it. If I had a lot of time.

Splitting it up could fix the problem of readability by making a bunch of smaller articles. Smaller articles are easier to read than big articles.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply don't think you are capable of fixing it, since you seem not to have understood what the issues are. The article was readable enough before. Anyway, I'd rather wait and see what other people have to say. If necessary, I could start an RfC, but first I'll see if anyone watching this page has anything to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say split the Sociological aspects and demographics section into its own article titled Demographics of furries (or something similar). Then revert the history section to the previous version. The rest of the sections I think are decent enough to stay and be cleaned up. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That section is problematic to say the least. It cites all sorts of sources (some clearly not RS) while failing to explain where and how the data was gathered - which probably at least in part explains why they are all giving different results. It also seems to miss-report what the data actually represents in places. I suspect that if it were cut back to RS material which actually explained what it was describing, it would be a lot shorter, and a lot more readable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: keep in mind the furry fandom is very internet based. It’s hard to do data on internet based communities.

Also many furries tend to keep their furry identity as secret.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged some unreliable sources. Specifically https://furscience.com/ is concerning. ––FormalDude talk 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I don’t think FurScience is unreliable. I have seen another editor state it’s a reliable source regarding the furry fandom.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Who? There's this discussion where another editor complains about it being a self-published source. ––FormalDude talk 22:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup that’s the individual. The source is reliable regarding the Furry Fandom. It aren’t regarding other topics tho. So I can understand why you tagged it.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually I can sorta see why you tagged them now. Furscience may be reliable regarding the furry fandom but they have made some claims they might not have knowledge on. Like they claimed 16% to 2% of the general population had ADHD.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If anything, I think that Furscience is probably one of the better sources, as long as it is made clear who they are. There are several masters theses cited in the article, none of which is at all likely to be acceptable as RS. Again though, it isn't just a question of whether a source is 'reliable' in the abstract, it it is whether it is a valid source for the article content. Which again comes down to poor writing. As an example, the article repeatedly makes assertions about survey results as if they reflect furries as a whole, rather than those that have responded to a particular survey. You simply cannot make sweeping generalisations about any group based on a subset of self-selected survey responders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: No kidding… at User talk:CycoMa1 § WP:OWN and furry fandom I suggested to CycoMa1 they pursue [a] slower process of article development, which clearly has not happened. The question is, how do we solve it? I don't really know how we get around naming their edits as one of the main sources of the problem, as according to XTools their work now constitutes more than half of all bytes in the article; at the end of August 2021, they began with this edit, at that time the article was 53,846 bytes. It's now, many edits later, the majority of which are CycoMa1's, 109,971 bytes. In fact, CycoMa1 has 994 edits to this article, almost all of which were made since then. I don't see how we discuss this without discussing CycoMa1's contribution, and whether it's been overall positive. Is the version of August 2021 better? I'm not saying that, but if we want to compare, this is a logical place to start. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I thought I did develop slower process of developing the article.

I just think the earlier version of the article was outdated and misinformation. Do you think making smaller articles might be okay?CycoMa1 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also the older version of the article might have been guilty of cherry picking. Although I can’t assume what the older editors were thinking. So I wouldn’t make that assumption.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also as I forgot to mention this but the sources currently in the article say a lot more on certain subjects of the fandom.

It’s just the article shortens stuff down so the article doesn’t become too big. So yeah I think making separate small articles might also help in making sure certain views not get distorted or misused.

Like maybe make a separate article on the sexual aspects of the fandom.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you'd have difficulty convincing people that 'sexual aspects of furry fandom' was an independently notable subject. They get discussed a great deal - but that is because the sources see them as a significant part of the fandom. You can't properly discuss the fandom without discussing the sexual aspects, so trying to move them elsewhere would leave a gaping hole in the main fandom article. And in any case, the problems with this article aren't just down to size. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of response here, and given that CycoMa1 seems not to understand the many problems with the article as it stands, it seems clear that it will be necessary to ask for outside input on this issue. I shall be starting an RfC in the next few days, proposing that the article be reverted to the version of August last year. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand your issues with the article.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m gonna try and rewrite the whole article. The older version of the article might had some original research or cherry picking any way.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Given those two responses, I can only conclude that you are entirely incapable of understanding what the actual issues with your editing are. Which would seem to make an RfC on reverting the article pointless, since that is a behavioural/competence issue, rather than a content one. An RfC clearly isn't needed to revert the wrecking of an article through incompetence, even if done in good faith. Accordingly, I am going to revert to the August state tomorrow, unless someone offers a sensible alternative. And then raise your behaviour at an appropriate place if you persist in damaging the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I don’t think it’s a good idea to talk about behavior with me when you were uncivil with me when I tried to civil with you when you first commented on this talk page. here you admitted you were uncivil with another editor. You straight up said this Yes, I was uncivil. I had raging toothache, to add to my usual grumpiness.

And judging by this it appears you haven’t learned from your mistakes.

Also you talk about competence when you yourself have never even edited this topic before, you only started editing this topic like 2 weeks ago and I started editing this months ago. So I’m pretty sure I know more about the topic than you. Maybe we can ask someone who knows a lot more about the topic than the both of us.

Plus the older version of the article had problems. Even you admitted it had problems.

I have seen better sources and more reliable sources out there on this topic anyway. I guess the reason the sources back then weren’t ideal was because this topic wasn’t being touched upon as much as it is today.

It’s probably best to just rebuild the entire article from the ground up.

Plus the reason the current article looks bad is because honestly I rushed it, which is my mistake. I can make decent articles with enough time and patience.

I can just rebuild this entire article in a subpage of mine. Plus I have listened to all of your criticisms.CycoMa1 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to debate with you further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: just do the RFC thing and get this whole thing over with. I’m pretty sure both you and I are getting tired of this nonsense.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the above responses, which seem to indicate that CycoMa1 either isn't even reading my posts, or lacks the ability to understand a simple statement, I have reverted the article to the coherent, grammatical and encyclopaedic state as of August last year. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There wasn’t even a consensus. You said you were gonna RFC why haven’t you done that yet? CycoMa1 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look do a RFC and they agree with you that a rollback is okay I’ll be okay with it, deal.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this clearly isn't going to be resolved here, I have now started a thread at WP:ANI. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert to article version as of August last year.

As discussed in earlier an threads here, [3] and at a subsequent thread at WP:ANI[4], this article has undergone very significant editing by a single individual over the last six months or so, leading to a marked deterioration in the quality of the article - compare its state yesterday [5] with the August 2021 version. [6] Since, in the ANI thread, the individual concerned has now acknowledged that the editing was non-constructive ("Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that. It honestly looks horrible in my opinion."), [7] and since nobody seems to have raised any objections to me doing so, I have now reverted the article to the earlier state.

Clearly this will also result in the reversion of more constructive edits, from amongst the relatively few made during the period by other contributors, but we will at least now have a properly-structured, grammatical and encyclopaedic starting point to work from. Apologies to anyone who got their work reverted, but this seems the best method of restoring an article that is at least now readable. Over the next few days I will be looking back through the article history, and attempting to restore anything lost which is still relevant and compliant with policy.

I should note that amongst the issues raised with recent edits, beyond mere poor writing, were both questionable sourcing and the cherry-picking of legitimate sources for questionable content, and accordingly I'd ask that anyone looks carefully at any sources cited before restoring anything added recently and subsequently reverted. Even as it stood in August, there were probably a few minor problems that needed dealing with, but hopefully we can arrive at an article that does justice to its subject matter, and which at least aspires to be worthy of an encyclopaedia. Our readers deserve it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking on zoophilia

Okay, so contributor User:AndyTheGrump reverted the article back to its older state for obvious reasons and I don't object to this version however this version still has problems nonetheless.

This version of the article has issues with regards to zoophilia. This version says A small proportion of the fandom is sexually interested in zoophilia (sex with animals), although a majority take a negative stance towards it. An anonymous survey in 2008 found 17% of respondents reported zoophilia.

However, the source cited for that statement says 17.1% of furries identify as zoophiles.

Also, the statement claims that a majority of the participants had a negative view towards zoophilia however the survey says this. Regardless of participation, most furries took at best a moderated view towards zoophilia.

This is clearly a case of cherry-picking. In that 2008 study only around 45% of the participants had a negative view of zoophilia, that’s not a majority.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, almost all the article content regarding surveys is problematic. Any proper discussion of such content should begin by noting exactly who conducted the survey (i.e. in the case of the 2008 survey, the Furry Research Center, which though it aspires to academic credibility, probably deserved, might will be seen as non-neutral), and who the survey subjects were. No survey in this article should be cited for unqualified statements about what 'furries' in general think or believe. As for the specifics regarding zoophilia, it is a very tricky subject to get meaningful data on, for fairly obvious reasons, and Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be engaging in original research, as the section in question appears to be doing where it compares surveys concerning 'furries' with the results of surveys done on other groups. I'd be interested to see what other people have to say on this though, and before we do anything more we might do well to ask at WP:RS/N whether, and how, 'Furry Research Center' survey results should be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Since no one did anything or commented I decided to just edit the thing myself. CycoMa1 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now edited the article to remove the WP:OR etc, though I'm still not entirely happy with using the Furry Research Center data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

More recent research on zoophilia.

The "Sexual aspects" section cites a poll from 2008 which found 17% of respondents to identify as zoophiles. However, I noticed another source from 2019 that found only 6.9% of respondents were interested in zoophilia. I think that further recent sources for this section should be pursued: From my experience, the fandom has an overwhelmingly negative view on zoophilia as a whole, and it is evident to me that the 2008 study is no longer an accurate representation of the fandom. (Forgive me if I'm using this section wrong, I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia.) — GreyAwoo (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As I noted above, using furry-specific research organisations might be seen as problematic, but as long as we make it clear where the data is coming from, and its possible limitations, it is probably better than nothing, and we should obviously use later data if we can. I'll revise the article when I've had a chance to look at the source in more detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andy. As you review, please do note the credentials of the researchers involved in the FurScience project - many of them appear to be published in a variety of journals, etc. While some of them are furries, they certainly are not furry-specific in their scope of research as a whole. The project's been running for some time, it's quite comprehensive, and the research team has certainly been quite professional and focused, from everything I've seen. In addition, there is a fair bit of media coverage in which the project is covered and the experts in question used as sources. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the research being cited by the media is a point in their favour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

I'd like to update the photo under Sociological Aspects to this one:

Gravellyplain (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Sorry!--TZubiri (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" as an insult.

In my own the offensive version of the terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" is considered very homophobic and right-wing, and used it on politics, because of this, they probably resembled them as liberals and leftists, and this needs to stop! And I wish someone would create a term called "Right-wing fanboy(s)", to resemble right-wing extremists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here - a language barrier, perhaps. Are you saying that there are some who use these terms as insults and that those who do this tend to be homophobic and/or far right? In general, furries tend to be more LGBTQ-friendly and on average are more left-leaning than the general population, at least in the USA (I think IFRP has covered this, though I don't have their research in front of me). If "furry" and "fursona" are being used in such a manner, we would want to find reliable sources covering such usage before including it in Wikipedia. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is. And people with far-right views are using it as a slur! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs)

As you have already been told on your talk page, Wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum. Either make an actual proposal for editing, directly backed up by published reliable sources, or find somewhere other than Wikipedia to complain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs)

What. I'm a furry myself and I have never heard of anyone saying that the terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" are homophobic or right-wing. In fact, we find "furry" and "fursona" the proper terms. While technically there is also "anthro" that's mainly referring to making animals look human-like. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

Remove "along with sport fans," (under the Sociological Aspects heading); it's an unnecessary comparison 2601:281:D17F:9DBD:5951:F070:B0AF:92D8 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, doesn't seem particularly relevant. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Image replacement proposal

File:Avis Draws - Bloop (2020) (cropped variant).png

A typical furry character of an anthropomorphic felid

Hey folks, I'm here to discuss the article in the quickest possible way. I recently made a cropped version of the original (pictured) because it was "oversexualized and unrepresentative." What do y'think about replacing an existing image with a new one?

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 05:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited: 07:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why the article needs to be illustrated with artworks anyway? This is an article about a group of people, not a cartoon, and article illustrations are supposed to show the subject matter. Commons has many good photos of individuals in its 'fursuits' category and subcategories: we should be able to find one amongst that if none of the existing photos used in our article aren't suitable to go at the top of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "good" about finding different photos instead of artworks where everything is just irrelevant to what you prefer. Therefore, I won't help you with improving the article anyway.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 21:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited: 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I quite like the image proposed , the artstyle is more representative and feels more relevant of the fandom currently. People remember first impressions the most and that is most likely going to be the first image they see so it should be good artwork that represents the fandom in it's current state. The current picture doesn't look like a "a typical furry character" like you see online, atleast not anymore. 10fps man (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

i agree! though, if the image proposed does end up being used in the article, some credit to the artist should be provided. a link wouldn't be needed obviously, but providing their online handle and the platform the work appeared on would be a good idea. it might also be a good idea to ask the artist if they would mind their work appearing on this article. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I really like the new image! The main thing I like about it is it's a bit more "modern" in the style. I have nothing against the artist of the current one. It just gives me the vibe of 2009, not that that's bad. Also, my response to Andy would be the furry fandom is more than simply just fursuiters. I would say that when people hear the word "furry" they either think of fursuits, or furry art. @The Harvett Vault: if I see no strong objections in a few days I'll go ahead and replace it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think it would be helpful to modernize the example of a furry drawing on the page, but the artist who made the anthro vixen that is currently on the page also made a modernized version of the same drawing some years ago. Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lessnesslynx: Is that image publicly available (or released under a compatible license or already on commons)? If it isn't then we can't really use the modernized version of that image. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already on commons actually. Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lessnesslynx: Could you provide a link? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yamavu#/media/File:Anthro_vixen_fullbody_front.svg Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lessnesslynx: Apologies for the extremely late reply. I think I'll put it up to consensus as to which image we use in the lede. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Gender percentage doesn't match source

In the part "sociological aspects" there is the sentence "78–85% of furries identify as male, the remaining identify as female; while most are cisgender, 2% are transgender.[83]:10" However, if you look at the source attached ([83] Plante, Courtney N.; Reysen, Stephen; Roberts, Sharon E.; Gerbasi, Kathleen C. (2016). FurScience! A summary of five years of research from the International Anthropomorphic Research Project (PDF). Waterloo, Ontario: FurScience. ISBN 978-0-9976288-0-7. Archived from the original on April 24, 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2016.) the data in that source is:

"Sex: Male 72.4% Sex: Female 27.4% Sex: Intersex 0.2%

Gender: Masculine 67.1% Gender: Feminine 23.3% Genderqueer/Non-Binary: 10.0%" Which isn't the same as what is stated in the Wikipedia article. I cannot seem to find where the original data came from. (The "2% are transgender" part of the sentence is consistent with the data in this source though, as they also asked people that specifically identify as transgender, and that percentage was 2%)

Furthermore, there are more recent surveys held by the IARP that should also be taken into consideration for the Wikipedia article. I have checked for the gender ratios and for that aspect there are more recent studies which have different data. While I have only checked for the gender ratio data thus far, I personally think that more information in the "sociological aspects" could probably be updated with more recent data, as it currently mostly cites the same data from 2017 TransDragonLira (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@TransDragonLira: I've looked through the article's history, and those numbers appear to come from an earlier research by the same group (from around 2012). The research was updated without updating the actual numbers, so it should be fine to change them to match the source. Since that research is from 2016, having more recent numbers would be very helpful, so if you have good sources, share them here so we can take a look. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

This link is the official website of the IARP, listing off their recent findings in their 2021-2022 studies, including some older data from 2017, 2018, and 2020. https://furscience.com/research-findings/demographics/1-3-sex-and-gender/

However, it seems my suspicions about more things possibly needing to be updated were incorrect, sorry about that. The rest of their findings in the 2021-2022 studies have not yet been published, so it seems it'll have to wait untill it is possible to update the rest of the socialogical aspects section https://twitter.com/furscience/status/1561104933717528577 TransDragonLira (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So in a discussion above, there was some talk about possibly changing the image used in the lead of the article. 2 images were proposed to change, so as to not show any bias towards one particular image from my personal opinion, I'll leave it up to a !vote.

• 
  Option 1: Current image in the article
• Option 2: A more modern image than what appears in the article.
  Option 2: A more modern image than what appears in the article.
• 
  Option 3: A modernized version of the current image by the same artist.

If there are no comments within 7 days then I'll go ahead and use Option 2 unless there are some objections since that seems to be the one that most people preferred in the above discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

While I think option 2 is the better image to use, I'd prefer if the first image presented in the article was of people in fursuits, as this appears to be the main focus of the article. I'm not sure where this image could be move to, though. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I could probably just swap around this image with the fursuiter one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is about people, not cartoon images. The lead image should represent the subject of the article. Possibly an image of an individual in a fursuit isn't truly representative of furries in general (of whom only a minority own full fursuits, according to the article), but it is certainly preferable to one that doesn't illustrate the article subject at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do agree, which is why I can swap around where the images are in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classification as a Counterculture

While the fandom has become more mainstream in recent years, I think there is an argument that the furry fandom is a counterculture. Countercultures are defined as, " A culture whose values and norms of behavior deviate from those of mainstream society." I hold the belief that the fandom fits this definition. However I have yet to include this in the article due to lack of reliable sources. Neo CyberLich (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it has been referred to as counterculture in the past but, yes, we'd need cites for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how to research citations for something likely to be obscure? Neo CyberLich (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You'd be looking for books & articles on counter-culture movements, as well as ones specifically about furries. I won't have time to dig into it this week, but I'll see what I can find later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Dubious tags in sexuality

So currently the article says furries are more likely to be gay/bi/lesbian by a factor of ten, which appears to be a bit of synthesis from a Gallup poll unconcerned with furry sexuality. There are dubious tags on the poll's percentage of bisexual/gay/lesbian Americans for no reason that I can find. What's dubious about it and should this seeming synthesis even be in the article? XeCyranium (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that the "factor of 10" claim should be considered original research. I don't, however, understand the tags placed on the statistical claims on LGBT identification, as they are directly stated in the given source. I think that the "factor of 10" claim should be removed or adequately sourced, and that the tags should be removed on the other claims. 22090912l (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah i feel like that needs some more solid evidence and verification Frostwolf74 (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Hi , maybe you shouldnt talk abt zoophilia as now the result of this survey is less than 2% 2A04:CEC0:1010:9622:8162:D3F1:777D:E319 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify which survey you are referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Although it is relatively insignificant, it is an important piece of information that should be included. Frostwolf74 (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, we need a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

oh i see Frostwolf74 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is right here for the survey that got 2%. The source for the other one that got 17% is on page 26 of this. Though I have noticed that the source in the article for the first one leads to a broken website that isn't available so that source is no longer reliable and needs to be updated. I have also noticed that the source for the second one says 17.1% rather than 17%, Although it is minor it should be updated to say 17.1%. Frostwolf74 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

2008 is horribly out of date, and I'm not actually sure Furry Research Center is an RS. Unless someone can find a more recent one, we should probably just strike this entire topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree Frostwolf74 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Visual art image deleted from commons

c:File:Avis Draws - Bloop (2020) (cropped variant).png has apparently been deleted from commons, and thus from this article. It seemed to have started with one image by the artist deleted for "unclear use case, suspicion of spam", which led to a strange discussion with a lot of fighting, followed by all the artist's works being deleted from there at the request of the original uploader (not the artist) with little discussion, including the one used on this article. There do appear to have been a lot of images by the artist uploaded that weren't being used and were just uploaded due to having a free license, but this one's use here does not appear to have been brought up at all. What action is best to take now, as far as an image representing the visual art site of the fandom? Ringtail Raider (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)