Talk:Yiff/Archive 1

This page 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 15, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion a second time on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Redirected to furry fandom. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Politics in Furry

Re: the 2008/8/8 edit. The longer-than-necessary details of the politics in Furry were given the chop. Concise is Nice.

Please, don't just revert articles and/or remove information without an actual reason to do so. If you think that something should be rewritten, then by all means, do so, but keep in mind that more information on a given subject is a Good Thing(tm). Concise may be nice, but it's even nicer to have an article that gives as much background as possible for those who do not known about it from elsewhere. -- Schnee 11:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Viewed from the perspective of somebody who is on the outside of Furrydom (but looks in now and then), Schnee's edits are much more informative, and neutral enough POV. The politics are there, whether people want to "deal" or not, and how furries handle "Yiff" in the future will, I think, define what it means to be part of the movement. Always add, never subtract is a major part of how ALL wikis generically work, and would be my advise to the anonymous editor in this case on Wikipedia. -- Feedle 08:10, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Concice is indeed a good thing, but not if it removes some information present in an article. I do believe that there is more information in the version provided by Schnee, and therefor shoud be used in preference to the shorter, but less informative discussion. -- Darkhorse 21:45, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah.... BRILLIANT!!!!!! Concise to meet the standards of ONE apparently brainless tumor. Perhaps it is time to emulate the past and remove all vowells from the language. That would add conciseness. Sheeesh. Where do those airheaded imbeciles come from?68.13.191.153 03:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of text that makes little sense

Removed from article:

"However, there is also a comparatively-small movement of those horrified by the word's sexual connotations that exists to alter the popular usage of what is arguably furry fandom's commonest piece of jargon into something more generally acceptable. This movement's agenda is to advertise furry fandom as a friendly, tolerant, and, most importantly, clean community; most furries, though, feel that doing so takes away an important part of what it means to be furry, arguing that, even though furry fandom encompasses much more than just sex, the sexual side of furry fandom cannot and should not be denied.

Furries generally tend to ignore these controversies, but occasionally, the matter surfaces again; for example, at the 1997 Anthrocon in Albany, New York, three different groups (the proponents of the sexual connotation of the word, the opponents thereof, and a faction tired of the entire controversy as a whole) all took to writing "I'M YIFFY!" on their name-badges; the confusion and ill karma this generated in the extremists provided great amusement to the convention attendees."

1. Non-NPOV 2. Makes little sense

Anyone familiar with this please rewrite or explain.

Exploding Boy 13:19, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

makes little sense to someone who's calling himself a Furry (me) too. --Conti|✉ 08:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there *was* a group calling themselves the "Burned Furs" who were on what might be viewed as a crusade / jihad against the association of sex with furrydom (in whatever way). Also, why's the above part NPOV? -- Schnee 15:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of etymologies

I removed the part

Other versions claim that it derives from a 1970s gay slang acronym for "Young Immediately Fuckable Fag" (GoogleGroups) or from the "Young, Individualistic Freedom-minded Few" (also GoogleGroups) (Yiffies, a la yuppies, and so on) that made up the first generation of FurryMUCKers.

from the article. I've never heard any of these explanations and google doesn't give me any hints either. Also, this is the most common explanation of the origin of "yiff" in the furry fandom. If this is wrong some evidence would be nice. --Conti|✉ 08:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't the GoogleGroups citations in the text count for anything? They come from a thread on alt.fan.furry discussing the word.

--Too-lazy-to-register-an-account, 09:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that thread there are numerous other explanations for the word ([1]), and they almost all only appear in that thread and no where else in the web. There needs to be a bit more information than just one person saying so to include that in the article in my opinion. If the word originated from the "queer community of the 1970's" than there should be some mentioning of it somewhere outside of the fandom. --Conti|✉ 07:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken there, though I think that post you mentioned was meant in a ha-ha-only-joking sort of way. Maybe I'm looking at it differently. Some Googling calls up other acronyms (or backronyms) along similar lines. An old VCL thread brings up the same general possibilities, though it's since been deleted from VCL proper and the link is through Google's cache. UrbanDictionary has its own "Young Incredibly Fuckable Furry" definition. The poster I referenced the first time mentions that definition appearing in an article in an Outlooks Magazine (in Canada, from a Google and the TelusPlanet email address), but I don't have the time or resources to go track it down. The yuppie-esque "Yiffies" certainly exists, appearing at least in a Fortune Magazine cover story (August 27, 1990) and a number of marketing-demographic breakdowns, which is in the same ballpark that Dave Huang mentioned, so it seems like a fairly reasonable connection, especially given the fandom's propensity towards characterizing itself as open-minded and nonconformist.

So maybe I'm more inclined to acknowledge vaguely-reasonable folk etymologies, even if they may be wrong, for sake of completeness (especially when *all* of them are more or less folk etymologies). It's not really important, though; I'm just trying to contribute some information I remembered and dug up. I'm not going to make the revision myself, since it'll just get changed right back, but, y'know... look at what I scratched up, and tell me what you think. Maybe there's a better way to put it, or room for a side-thought, or something of the like.

--Still-too-lazy, whatever-time-this-is.

I heared the term "young innocent fuckable fox" and others pretty often, but they were always meant as a joke and a backronym which usually boils down to "young i-something fuckable f-something". The Outlook Magazine has a website, but I can't find any information on it about this topic.

The term "yiffies" does indeed exist (I didn't knew that), and this website says it was "Coined by a Fortune magazine cover story", it should be the one you mentioned. A usenet post about the origin of yerf (and yiff) says the log was "from 1990 or so", the cover story was from August 27, 1990, as you said.. that is a pretty interesting coincidence indeed. Maybe the terms have some connection, maybe not, but I think this could be mentioned in the article. --Conti|✉ 15:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really a Wiktionary candidate?

This article seems a bit more like an article than a dictionary entry to me, and furthermore Furry#Seuality refers to this article as a source for more detail about that subject. Does anyone else think we should leave it here? Bryan 07:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it should stay. There's certainly more than two paragraphs that could be said about it, although admittedly I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do so. I'm sure someone must be though, so this looks more like a page in need of attention, not moving. ShaneKing 07:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll recategorize it as such then, since there's been no further comment. Perhaps fortunately, I don't have much to add on this subject myself. :) Bryan 04:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't even see this. ^^ Anyhow, I agree with ShaneKing; it should stay. -- Schnee 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

on NPOV

I talked about furry polictics because that subject is unavoidable within the role of "yiff" in the furry community. I tried my best to be neutral, but I believe I failed miserably. Someone please go there and make it NPOV. Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 02:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the section needs a more specific name than "Furry Politics," as that makes it sound (to me) like furry politics revolves solely around yiff (arguable). Overall I think the section is pretty cood but could use some work in the clarity department. I'll play with it a bit and see what I come up with. - Qtiger 03:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've only seen it revolving around yiff directly and indirectly. I wouldn't be any surprised if I was wrong, though; and I agree the name "Furry Politics" is far from the best name in an encyclopedia. Please do so. :) - Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 13:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest removing the POV check flag from the article. If there isn't any objection, I'll probably be doing that myself within a week. Thanks ContiE, Qtiger and Loganberry for the work. :) Ekevu (talk) 13:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yiff as pure animal or animal human hybrids only

Would this count as a yiff image? http://img228.echo.cx/img228/466/pbf003bcbunnypit2ik.jpg If yes, I believe it can be included as fair use. 219.93.174.107 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that the image linked to there isn't yiff; I'd say that yiff would be more sexually explicit than that, but it's hard to set exact boundaries and so others may disagree. Loganberry (Talk) 01:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haha! Quite funny, although I think it's a little questionable to take advantage of one's children like that... Anyway, back to your question, yeah, the sex is only hinted at (although the results from it make it quite clear what has been going on ^,^) so I wouldn't consider this particular comic yiffy. Also, I agree that Yiff is mostly used when talking about more human-like funny animals. 85.226.122.222 06:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No Original Research (wikipedia policy)

Some of the information on this page is innacurate and it needs sourced cited to back it up. According to wikipedia's policy, you are not allowed to post original research and especially without sources this is what the article plainly looks like. And wikipedia's deleters are nazis so you need sources so they won't all delete your article. I added some links. I spent a few hours searching and these are the best links I can find. If you don't like them, then replace them with at least some links, don't just vandalize like ContiE and blank them out. 211.99.9.60 15:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, you were spending hours to search for links. If that would be true, why are 3 of the links dead? The other websites look like randomly chosen furry sites which in no way can be called "cited sources". Anyways, it is quite obvious that you are just here to troll, so stop that or start editing in a serious and productive manner. --Conti|✉ 15:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dead? Okay. Well, wikipedia was down when I clicked the link and I lost most of them. I was editing it all in a sandbox and I tried to use my memory. I'm no troll. Falsely calling someone else a troll is the most common trolling and flaming tact -- that is what you are doing. Why don't you find some good sources and put them up, or is all you do is page blank vandalism? If you're too lazy, will you allow me to put that the content is dispute until sources are found? I only do previews in a sandbox for one edit and then it crashes and then my browser likes to lose everything in a text box when I hit the back button. 211.99.9.60 15:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babyfur

ContiE again gave biased edits on this page. He removed:

Skritching: the act of stimulating various erogenous zones manually, and is similar to gentle scratching. This is an exclusively furry or otherkin act, and is often a prelude to a yiff. May also be spelled "scritch".
Fursecution: Mocking or discriminating against a furry. A contraction of "furry" and "persecution"
Babyfur
Unbirth
Fetish
Endosomatophilia
Animal transformation fantasy
Otherkin
List of furry comics

External Links

Firstly, Babyfur is obviously something that belongs in see also, same with Animal transformation fantasy, Otherkin, and fetish, and list of furry comics. Most of these see alsos are not linked in any other pages. And fursection is not refered to anywhere in wikipedia (now thanks to ContiE) Thodin 11:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, uhm, could you kindly explain what fursecution and otherkin has to do with yiff? I removed babyfur because that's a thing that is not always about yiff. Fetish can be a yiffy thing, but not everything yiffy has to be a fetish. Animal transformation fantasy is still in the list. --Conti|✉ 11:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't link Babyfur to furries because they don't believe furries engage in any sexual practices. But it has to relate somehow. Either to yiff or another article. But it, unbirth, and several others are islands, unknown. If I found sources that backed this up would you accept them? Thodin 11:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the babyfur movement has its yiffy aspects, I'm saying that this is not always the case. I just don't see the point in linking to many different fetishes from this article. And Babyfur does link to furries, so I'm sure if I understand what you mean with that sentence. --Conti|✉ 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised "scritch" was removed, since the description given there is misleading at best. The majority of scritches (which spelling is much more common than "skritch", I'd say) have no yiffy aspect, and have nothing to do with erogenous zones. As for babyfur, that article already mentions the main furry article in its "See also" section. Loganberry (Talk) 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Logan, I put all the see alsos in there. Before that it was like a stub. Thodin 15:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you weren't signed in when you edited the babyfur article (assuming that's your meaning) so your name doesn't appear in its history section. But my other point remains -- defining scritching as "the act of stimulating various erogenous zones manually" is inaccurate, since a large proportion of scritches are on arms, backs etc. Loganberry (Talk) 15:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is The Google Image Search Relevant? I THINK YES!!

A google image search with safesearch off for "yiff" reveals thousands of yiff pornographic drawings. [2]. I want to hear arguments from both sides over the relevance of this piece of information. I believe YES but I got reverted for noting it in the article. WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay 2 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant so much as redundant. The article describes (in the Erotic or Pornographic Art section) the meaning of "yiff" as it applies to artwork, and also states that this is a common usage, so I don't think it needs saying that a Google will pick up plenty of yiffy drawings. Loganberry (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

Hmmm

I saw an anonymous IP removed the only image here. Then I suspect the IP logged on and it was a user and that user gave some kind of reason, however I find many doubts with that reason, "not very yiffy". Now we could add many images that are VERY yiffy, but they'd be deleted by all the prudes that make prude edits across wikipedia. If someone wants to put in a better picture, we should. Until this happens, the old one is utterly neccessary for comparrison to see it is better. SamsonFro 22:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

We could just as easily add a picture from Calvin and Hobbes; that'd probably be just about as relevant. Besides, the caption text that you reverted to was rather insulting anyways. --Zetawoof 02:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a picture I took in my home. It may be too yiffy and if you both want something better, I'd like a discussion on its merrits and lacks. Crayolacrime 14:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "go and troll somewhere else", but do you actually have some kind of evidence that this is actually your picture? --Conti|✉ 15:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You sound like the troll yourself. Until you can carry on a rational discussion I am putting the picture back. Get ahold of yourself man, this is an encyclopedia, not portal of evil. Don't give "this sucks" as your reason. Crayolacrime 17:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oookay, putting this in nice little words: what has the picture to do with the article's topic? If it is your picture, why don't you release it under the GFDL? Do you have the permission from the people that can be seen on the picture to show it? Why do you create an account just to upload a "yiffy picture" and put it here? Why do you welcome yourself on your user page? --Conti|✉ 17:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have something against the picture or not? Do you say it's not yiffy, too yiffy, or is your definition of yiffy unique? Would you share with me what pictures you consider yiffy? Will you please post a picture yourself so you can enforce what you deem worthy of this article and not just what your honorable self deems unworthy? Crayolacrime 17:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for not answering my questions. And thank you for making it obvious that you're just a troll by uploading some not so tasty image under the name "MinorYiff". I proposed them both for deletion. --Conti|✉ 20:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I answered questions pertaining to the picture. I did not answer your personal questions because you are acting unstable. You go around insulting me instead of discussing things. You act more interested in character attacks than on improving wikipedia. Crayolacrime 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

To Yiff = infinitive verb form
Yiff = verb / noun
Yiffy = adjective
Yiffily = adverb
Yiffiness = noun

DyslexicEditor 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

WTY are you talking about? Stop yiffing around! ^^ 85.226.122.237 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Request For Comment

I took a look at this page from WP:RFC to see what the big deal is. First, the picture, to me, seems perfectly relevant and helpful. It seems to me that it is a perfect example of "yiffy artwork" as described in the article. Second, the caption is much less helpful. Perhaps "Yiffy artwork" would be more helpful. Conti, please refrain from deleting the image unilatteraly. There is no consensus to remove it. James 21:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Prior to James' edit I moved the drawing down to the "art" section. That moves it off the "first screen". -Willmcw 22:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Get Third Opinion

I have no real idea what this dispute is about. I think that this is basically a dispute between two editors, and that a Third Opinion is more in order than a formal Request for Comments. I will not provide the Third Opinion. Robert McClenon 00:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yiffy Picture Artwork

The current picture under Erotic or pornographic art is what we call scat and waterplay (piss and shit). When I seen that I was frightened in my seat. I don't think we (Furry Artists) want to use this picture (scat and waterplay) to represent all Yiffy Furry Artworks. James rejects my picture because he doesn't accept the fact I have full copyrights on this artwork (I have a signed contract, yes). I don't really mind, put anything else but : remove this horrible picture ! --Ozone Griffox 00:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as you make it clear on the image's page that the article can be placed here under GFDL, I have no problems with it. James 00:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is done. I have read carefully the GFDL and the contract I signed with Ian Rain. I can change the status of this file as I wish. It is now under the GFDL as requested. --Ozone Griffox 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has helped out so far. OzoneGriffox's picture might be better. I'm hoping the article can hold a couple more. The first should be a yiff photograph of people wearing fursuits demonstrating what the article speaks of. The other, I think should go on the Cybersex section and could be a screenshot of furry cybersex. I could get one, but I don't know how the copyright works concerning if I need to obtain permission of all the people whose text has appeared in chat--if anyone knows, I'd appreciate it. Crayolacrime 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Whatever the specifics of the copyright situation, if you post a screenshot showing chat comments from people who haven't given their permission to be shown here, you'll have some extremely unhappy people on your case very quickly. Loganberry (Talk) 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, what is it with Wikipedia and wanting pictures for every article, regardless how much sense they make? I'm not really sure how a yiffy picture can enhance this article, but at least it's a free one now.. Anyways, our beloved Crayolacrime was a bit active on the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/User:Crayolacrime encyclopedia dramatica, and there has been quite some activity from there coming to our furry related articles lately. It personally pisses me of quite alot, especially that they do pretty much what they want without anyone noticing that they are just trolling us. They first uploaded a picture for this article, and suddenly we "need" one, for reasons unknown to me. I have counted over a handful of accounts with just this purpose, I don't know how many of them are socks of each other, but they are getting a bit much for me to fight alone.. --Conti|✉ 13:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think even the replacement picture gives a false impression of Yiffy art, and will offend more people than it educates. Also, it has two copyright holders listed, but only one has given permission that I can see. I realize you have said you have a signed contract, but that gets into a gray area. What if your partner disagrees? Then what? It seemed simplest just to replace it with art *known* to be in the public domain that would be more encyclopedic and demonstrative of the genre as a whole. I think this improves the article by reducing the chance that people will be offended. Take a look and tell me what you think. =) <edit>And no, I won't be offended if you disagree and revert, I'm trying to improve the overall look of the article.</edit> Xaa 00:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with my picture is it is 100% gay. I don't have any mix str8 / Gay art available. Also it would be good to have some "quality art" here. Current picture is not the top, but it's not bad either. So if somebody changes the picture, try to put Str8 + Gay, quality art. --Ozone Griffox 10:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help you there, I don't do homo-erotic art, myself. Question: Could we have two images, to show a range of art? I think it can be pretty easily said that Yiffy art runs the entire sexual gamut, from gay to straight, fetishes, and stuff that literally defies description (like some of Winger's work). Perhaps another image to show a range of differences? Xaa 10:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I just happened to wander in (in that wonderful way that the wikipedia encourages random link-surfing), and I had a little problem with the current pic. I left a monolog in the pics own talk page, but basically, it seems somewhat overly hardcore for an encyclopedia. Its a nice pic, its a good example on many counts, except it seems way too explicit. If that was a photo (and presumably they were human, since its hard to photograph fictional creatures), it would be removed in an instant, it just dosnt belong on an encyclopedia. Look at other articles relating to porn, porn movies, etc. Many feature images, but they're all pretty "soft". Oh, and Im as open-minded as anyone, infact, Im a bloody perv, but I also know exactly how people with morals will react to this. --Tyr 80.195.231.235 02:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

<coughs politely> Again with the 'one pic representing the fandom' thing, I have a couple thoughts...
First is the fact if it should have a pic at all, as the rest of Wikipedia regarding adult matters is unillustrated for reasons we can relate to -- children at bay, really objectionable material, et cetera. So I put here my concern about having a erotic illustration there, I would recommend something more to risqué and less to pornographic... if a pic at all, for that matter. (linking to an external page sounds good to me)
Second, is my disagreement in, if having any pic, having a homoerotic piece. Altho I believe it showcases well the mainstream sexual aligment in MUDs and suches, it's more trouble than its worth. The rest of the world still is not kind about these stuff.
As a final note, I would like you guys thinking about this as something that you could read at work, school, library or with your mom looking over the shoulder. It's a encyclopedia after all. -- Random Annonymous Visitor, 00:51 GMT-3, 2005 - August - 21

Arf arf, I agree. I wanted to remove the picture of Scat and Waterplay at first, but somebody always put it back. They want a picture? ok... let's pick one less dirty. No picture at all would be better though, or maybe erotic pictures, but no artists wants to give his work for free? --Ozone Griffox 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia says in its rules that it is against censorship. No offense, I see a lot of pruditery here all related to people not liking a picture that has sexual content. For a month this article had a non-sexual picture that was a furry in a kissing booth asking for yiff; yiff is sex and not kissing but still the picture satisfied all those who are frightened of what yiff actually is. Well, then some people kept deleting it saying it wasn't very "yiffy". It wasn't but it kept the prudes happy. The present pic satifies the very, super-extremely hard to meet criteria of being not too yiffy and just yiffy enough that even those who understand the fandom would agree that it is yiffy.

The very top of the article states, "Yiff is a term widely used by the furry fandom as a slang term in various sexual contexts." A sexual topic is what this article is all about. For alternate images, I saw a documentary that had pictures of two people in fursuits in sexual intercourse and others of male genital attachments for fursuits. Both could be acceptable under fair use. SnowConeYellow 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A while ago, wikipedia voted against image censorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images SnowConeYellow 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To get an idea on how to handle this, it might help to look at the article on Pornography, which is a roughly analogous article, for comparison. Images include historical pornography, like the cover of the first Playboy. Maybe a cover image from an early Furry Pornography Zine? --RainR 07:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against Fursuit Yiff... But isn't showing it to the public the worst thing to do to prove how weirdo we are? I've read enough articles comparing Furry to Fursuit Yiff, though it is only a little (big?) part of the furry fandom. Not all like Fursuits, and not all like Fursuit Yiff.

If we were going to add a fursuit yiff picture (which I believe is a bad idea, but heh), it would be a good idea to put it in its own heading about Fursuits, and explain it is very specific. --Ozone Griffox 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

One may disagree with me, but I added two pieces of artwork to the article that I consider particularly suitable. I have consulted with the artist, and she agreed about putting there; I know that probally putting two pieces from the same artist isn' suitable, but until options arise, that's what I could arrange. Kobayen 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

.... and in the end, some nameless one just changes it in another thing without warning, thank you for that Community. Should've heard her advice.... Kobayen 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any copyright restriction if I edit those pictures so that they aren't so explicit? I plan to do that sometime this week. They're fine in their illustration purposes, but there's absolutely no need to be so... raw. - Ekevu (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A) We don't need any pictures. B) The copyright status of these two pictures is unclear. "Fair use" is tricky, and "by permission" alone is not allowed. C) For those reasons maybe we should just delete them. -Willmcw 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As being the one who upped the Mamabliss ones, I say go for it. It's just the best I could arrange, within laws, permissions, taste and requirements (one hetero, one gay). If one have a better idea, I'm listening.
And as far as I researched on previous Wikipedia decisions, 'Fair use' is tricky, but not reason alone to delete them -- else, almost all media in Wikipedia would have been taken down already. Kobayen 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well no, fair use violations are reason to remove pictures, but this violation is not clear cut. Why does this article need pictures? Why does it need those pictures? Why is it a "requirement" to have "one hetero, one gay" image? The long-standing initial picture is unobjectionable and I suggest we leave it at that. -Willmcw 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I've seen this is a very controversial question allright -- I'm happy people are debating before acting -- but the general consensus in the talk page were 'find something, but find something good', and 'one hetero, one gay, to show the whole gamut'. Hence my additions. Of course, that was my interpretation, maybe we should ask everyone or vote or something. Kobayen 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm.... "One hetero, one gay" is painfully far from "the whole gamut." Don't go for the gamut or it will eat ya. :) Ekevu (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is a modified version now. I think they're okay, but I will not revert if someone removes it. If you believe the pictures shouldn't be there, be bold and remove them. Illustrating would be good, the illustration that is there is far from the best, but I'm too lazy to go after something better. :) Ekevu (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On a semirelated note, I find funny how a four-person orgy is labelled as 'Furry Love', something its own artical claims to be deeper and unrelated to yiff. But I guess some stuff isn't meant to be understood. - Also Kobayen

Erm... Hadn't noticed that. The label is wrong, and even if it wasn't, it's POV. I'll just remove it along the lines of inappropriateness. Just because we can illustrate, it doesn't mean we have to. Ekevu (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good thinking there, Ekevu -- guess twas needed. Now let's see if people will keep complaining. Kobayen

I would like to thank whoever created the new picture for the new example of "Yiffy" artwork. Nice work, it seems to not offend anyone, and it's actually work safe. Nice job! Offthewall234 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Re to Kobayen's "I find funny how a four-person orgy is labelled as 'Furry Love', something its own artical claims to be deeper and unrelated to yiff." *I* made an article on it. I *tried* to make it good, but of course the so-called "editors" on wikipedia wouldn't help me make it decent. They being the typical wikipedia editor, just deleted everything, moved two words around, copied graphics from other articles that didn't help, and then left it. WpediaIsNotPaper 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree, the new pictures are very good. If the original artists accept the fair use, it's all good. Touch nothing! ^.^ --Ozone Griffox 07:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasels

The amount of weasel language in this article is impressive. Fredrik | talk 18:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Debates section is a weasel term zone. :P But if you have a better idea about this section, just show it! -- Ekevu (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But whatever happened to ferret terms and otter words? I tell you, weasels get all the credit. :-) --Zetawoof 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

self referencing

Hi, I read the wikipedia article on self referencing. I have in no way referenced a part of wikipedia in adding citation needed tags. However, as the information I tagged as needing citation is speculative discussion. As such, I am moving it here to the discussion page:

Simplistically, it could be said that there are two main strands of thought about yiffy art, as follows:

Something is wrong with furry fandom

This group includes some of the professional artists mentioned above, as well as those who object to yiff as a whole. They generally believe that the behaviour of many members of the fandom is highly perverted, ignoring taboos in a way which they feel is bad for the well-being of society as a whole. Solutions proposed often run among the lines of combating, limiting, and/or hiding potentially offensive artwork. In honor of this, many if not most fur artists keep potentially offensive material in separate portfolios that are clearly marked "adult." This includes many artists who don't follow this strand.

Something is wrong with human society

This group includes some of those involved in MUCKs and forums, a number of artists, and many people who believe that free speech is vital to free society, since by its nature yiff cannot be totally devoid of artistic value. They generally believe that adults should be free to decide for themselves what type of art to create and view, and they argue that there is a wide range of furry artwork suitable for all ages available from sites such as Yerf and even mainstream sources such as Warner Bros (e.g. Pinky and the Brain) or Disney (e.g. The Lion King). Some even suggest that the stigma is good thing in that it keeps away the elements of society that many furs are trying to get away from in the first place. Solutions proposed often run among the lines of pride campaigns, making it clear that artists are not ashamed of their works, and see nothing wrong with them.

Okay, that sounds great! Lotusduck 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I am not in disagreement with these viewpoints. However, collecting raw data from forums and interpreting it is the job of journalists, wikipedia is not a lazy persons' publisher.

... ... Fine, I admit, this is indeed original research. I inserted this myself (a smaller, worse worded version of it anyway) from my personal experience when this was a deletable pitiful stub. Well, I'm glad the article no longer needs it to survive, I blame, however, the journalists for never having brought this important discussion up. :P But, out there, there is some good articles around that somewhat go through this without the usual sensacionalism... But I haven't bookmarked. :( I'll look those up and bring them within the next weeks, when I get the time. • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chakat

I have found Chakat a furry article. While I understand, ContiE, who owns and controls all the furry articles on wikipedia goes around reverting me and refusing to discuss things, I want to ask, is there a reason why Chakat is not furry? Arights 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Chakat is a species, not a "sexual context". In brief, it appears to be irrelevant in this article, and particularly so in the place where you put it. To be fair, I'm not even sure what the original sentence meant ("variations of sexual context"?), so I've rewritten it significantly. It's still somewhat redundant, but at least it's understandable now. Zetawoof 10:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

More etymology

I was told, I think by Kimi The Ribbonizer, that 'Yiff' was originally simply a neutral expression of surprise made on one occasion by a non-morphic fox character upon stumbling across a couple of characters engaged in sex in a bush. From that incident, it was rapidly adopted as the fox word for 'sex', and then the 'sound of foxes mating' etymology in the main article took over. This is digging back... several years into prehistoric memory, I'm afraid, but it seems to accord with 'The Origin of Yerf' cited above. - Warwick@FM SleekWeasel 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put that in the article, you'd need a better source than that, I'm afraid... Beno1000 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion on Yiff

The page was nominated for deletion about six months ago. Old news. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.

Can I please remove the fucking porn?!

I come here to be edjucated, or just curious on what the furry fandom is. NOT see pictures of the porn of it. It's blatent porn, get it the fuck out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.201.193 (talk • contribs) .

You obviously haven't seen any real furry porn yet. But nope, can't do that, the article is about this, and the pictures actually aren't pornographic at all. --Conti|✉ 19:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase it isn't hardcore, doesn't mean it's porn. You can FAIRLY ERECT NIPPLES! Maybe it would be better if you just crop the image to show the bottom picture.

And I've been to /b/ on 4chan while they were flooding furries every Friday, so I've seen some crazy furry porn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.201.193 (talk • contribs) .

First, your whole argument is ruined by your mispelling of educated that looks intentional. For 4chan, I thought they stopped that a long time ago. As for furry porn, google image search with safe search off something like yiff, and then compare it with this page--you'll learn there is no porn here. DyslexicEditor 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

umm...ok so you've established that furry porn can be extremely explicit and disturbing. How does that justify showing "relatively tame" pornography? Porn is porn. The fact is that the image is going to disturb many viewers, particularly since "Yiff" is a pretty undescriptive name for furry porn, so people who come here may not be expecting porn. The image is sexual in nature, and contains nudity. It also fits the definition of pornography from www.dictionary.com

  1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Don't take that as me saying that it should be removed, or that it being porn completely justifies its removal. I will admit that most other articles relating to sex 'do' have explicit images, (albeit most are somewhat artistic), and the image in question 'is' fairly tame. I do, however, think it should be toned down further, considering the disturbing nature of furry porn to many people. There's no point in having an encyclopedia if people are afraid to read it. 129.21.109.18 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --Chris (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the Wikipedia non-censorship regards articles that are specifically related to (what would normally be considered) inappropriate material, like say pornographic articles. Reading this article I cannot say that it regards the sexual act itself, but the meanings behind the word (which at best includes the sexual interpretations) and as such I think it would be best to remove the erotic image. I do not think exposing the breasts serves any real purpose that a more appropriate image wouldn't. To the people who are against removing it, could you please tell me how an image containing exposed breasts would serve the article better than a more 'tasteful' erotic image would be? --Drule 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a reasonably good example of what people consider to be "yiff" art, which - surprise, surprise - often includes breasts. Indeed, this is one of the more tame pictures, seeing as it includes no primary sexual characteristics. If you can replace it with another example that you feel conveys the concept equally or better while simultaneously being more acceptable to readers who are touchy about such things, you are welcome to do so. My personal view is "my god, they're just breasts, people, half the world has them, get over it." GreenReaper 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it ain't in the Bible then it doesn't exist!!! Remove EVERYTHING from the Wiki that ain't in the Bible!!!! Not really.... just felt like adding a stoopid statement after reading some of the tripe on this page. By golly... the public education system MUST be a failure after all the idiocy I have read throughout the Wiki thingy. Bountiful babbling buffoons. Bah!!! 68.13.191.153 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments civil and refrain from making personal attacks. It's not going to accomplish anything useful and can be seen as disruption. --Chris (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for the porn, it's not as if it's complex, so a visual aid isn't required. The image is superfluous, a description should suffice. --Muna 08:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a non-nude picture in the body of the article would be in beter taste. There are "yiffy" pictures out there that are non-nude but Wikipedia is not censored for minors and the picures does illustrate the topic. Until an alternative is found and uploaded by a concerned party then there really isn't alot of grounds for removal in my opinion. NeoFreak 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't get it... I mean, the wikipedia article for gay porn isn't saturated with pictures yet this is. Is there a reason that the yiff articles needs these pictures to illustrate the point while the gay porn article doesn't? I say toss the retarded pictures. --72.150.85.183 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the gay porn article needs more pictures. I'm sure some furry ones could be provided - a significant proportion of furries participate in homosexual activity, and this is reflected in the pornography. I also feel that "saturated" is pushing it as a description two images. :-) GreenReaper 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That and gay porn is a little more self-explanitory than "yiffing". NeoFreak 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I've added two references and removed the {{unreferenced}} tag. At this point, individual ^{[citation needed]} tags should probably be used for any individual statements that need sources. -- Dragonfiend 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It also looks like this article could be redirected to furry fandom which is better sourced and covers this topic already. -- Dragonfiend 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This neologism should be redirected

To furry fandom I think is best. - Francis Tyers · 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't appropriate for neologisms or subcultural slang. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If nothing else, "yiff" and "yiffing" has been a term that the entertainment media has taken a somewhat unwholesome shine to. It's not as if it's a term that only one person supports either. See also wiktionary's discussion, but there's more background for it than a dictionary definition should be providing. GreenReaper 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of slang words used by people every day, and used to a much greater extent than 'yiff'. None of them should have a Wikipedia article, and yiff shouldn't either. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The misinterpretations (allegedly, heeheehee) of the mundane world of the furry fandom's relation to sexuality makes this very notable. However, the article doesn't really talk about that much... it could use better sourcing. On that note, since Wikifur is written by furries and "yiff" in the furry sense is a context-word made up by furries, Wikifur would be a reliable source pretty much automatically (as opposed to a not necessarily reliable source about comics or people, which were not invented by the fandom). =^_^=

Anyway, I would oppose redirecting because there is encyclopedic information to be shared about many slang [see lol (internet slang).] Milto LOL pia 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiFur is not a reliable source. Wikis in general are not. Wikipedia doesn't even qualify as a reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to ask what a Horcrux is, who would you ask? The New York Times, or J.K. Rowling? "Yiff" was invented as a furry term by furries just as "horcrux" was invented by J.K. Rowling. Etymology etc. shouldn't be sourced form Wikifur (although if the WF article is sourced, use the same sources), but for a definition of the meaning, you're not going to get closer to the source than Wikifur. Milto LOL pia 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Horcrux and am not sure quite why we have an article on it. In any case the article should be sourced with multiple, independent, reliable sources. JK Rowling is probably a notable person and so could be quoted on the subject. This has nothing to do with WikiFur which is a non-notable, non-reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - you don't care about it, but can't see why WP has an article about it. Maybe the case is the same here. Milto LOL pia 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I've removed the uncited portions of text. The citation needed tags were attached for long enough. If someone wishes to re-introduce the text, please do it with appropriate reliable sources per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Additionally I've removed the fair use image as it doesn't have a fair use rationale. - Francis Tyers · 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding uncited information to the article. It goes against Wikipedia policy. According to WP:V, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". WikiFur is not a reliable source, it is a dubious source, "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)." (WP:V). It has no editorial oversight and no fact-checking facilities. - Francis Tyers · 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article given here does not mention "yiff". And does not support the sentence to which it is attached, 'Examples of the word's present usage include "a yiffy fur", meaning a furry who is sexually aroused or active, "yiffy artwork", meaning sexually explicit furry artwork, "to yiff", meaning to have sex, etc.'. Accordingly it will be removed. - Francis Tyers · 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at the sources before you remove them. The Pitch article does mention yiff, just not on the first page of the article[3]. --Conti|✉ 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I've readded it. - Francis Tyers · 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd - we often get complaints about our editorial oversight, but not because we don't have any. GreenReaper 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have linked to livejournal. - Francis Tyers · 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because, you know, that's where the furry fandom is. They're talking about WikiFur, in case it wasn't obvious. :-) GreenReaper 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've re-inserted much of them that sounds like it probably can be verified - including info and hunting for cites later is probably better than just getting rid of it altogether, and since your comments above suggest that you're nuking stuff due to not being interested in yiffiness and are just repeating yourself about Wikifur. A first-hand source for a subculture-specific concept ought to do fine for the reasons I stated above. I encourage any interested editors to find sources for this true info. I'll start once I work up the courage to google "yiff". Milto LOL pia 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the uncited information. Please feel free to reinsert it once it is supported by reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just re-inserted it per above and your total refusal to discuss the sourcing. Milto LOL pia 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any reliable sources that you present. So far you have failed to do so. - Francis Tyers · 09:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on wikifur in particular, and you have said "it's a dubious source". Not at all helpful. Milto LOL pia 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline at WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions." - Francis Tyers · 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources for this article seem consistent with many other slang terms. See, for example, Newbie. Perhaps this is really a weakness in the Wikipedia guidelines as they apply to slang, especially modern slang. The nature of sources for a slang term are inherently different from the sources for an article on history or science. GaryFx 14:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to show me the policy which says that sources for slang must be different from the sources on history. All sources must be reliable. Random blogs or wikis and forum posts are not acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia. Ayatollah's hashish 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What I think GaryFx may have been getting at is that there is a perception that this article has been singled out for strict enforcement of policies that are frequently overlooked or sporadically enforced in other comparable articles. Perhaps if someone here were to identify several of these articles (preferably from diverse and unrelated categories so there isn't a perception that certain categories are being targeted for selective enforcement) we should go scrutinize those as well, and trim down or even AfD them as appropriate. --Mwalimu59 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. - Francis Tyers · 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources that might be worth checking out: A Furry Glossary, Songs in the Key of Fur: Intercultural Music in America, the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ. 5 minutes with Google turned these up; I'm sure more could be found. Shimeru 08:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

They must be both reliable sources and encyclopedic. If you want, try rewritting the article, but be careful: I suspect that tigerden.com is just a homepage and therefore not a reliable source according to our standards. Ayatollah's hashish 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a homepage. The FAQ, however, is to the Usenet newsgroup alt.lifestyle.furry, and should indeed be a reliable source for this purpose. There is probably a better host from which to obtain it; newsgroup FAQs tend to be mirrored all over the place, and that particular one may not be the most up-to-date version. Nevertheless, it suffices. Shimeru 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline at WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." (emphasis mine) - Francis Tyers · 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware that a FAQ is not the same as a Usenet post. FAQ is "Frequently Asked Questions," compiled by members of a given Usenet group as an introduction to new participants. It is not the opinion of a single user (although it is often maintained by a single user). Shimeru 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I hae no doubt that his is well aware what a FAQ is. This FAQ is not acceptable as a source as it is an original product of an established unreliable source. NeoFreak 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it's not unreliable for this purpose. These are not controversial claims, so primary sources are valid. (Admittedly, I may be mistaken; if you have contrary sources showing otherwise, please feel free to correct me. My research did not turn up any particular controversy regarding the definitions of 'yiff' or 'tinysex'.) Shimeru 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find alot of places that claim alot of things esp on the internet. That doesn't mean I'm going to use them as "primary sources" in an encyclopedia article. The FAQ in question is a "self published source" according to the guildline on reliable sources. Translation: it is not a reliable source, read the guidline again, it has sections that address this exact issue. Primary sources still have to establish credability through professional, journalistic or academic means or presentation. One of the few exceptions to this is the case of the subjects of living person biographies but that is a very rare and very sticky exception. Before you ask, no demographics do not count as "collective living biogrpahies". NeoFreak 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the RS guideline. I just disagree with your interpretation of it. To my mind, applying the criteria concerning "non-scholarly sources" results in net positives. As I noted elsewhere, FAQs have been generally accepted as reliable sources for purposes related to their respective newsgroups, and they are neither personal blogs, personal Usenet posts, nor personal webpages. The Jargon File, for instance, is fairly widely cited. Numerous Internet-related articles cite a variety of FAQs. And this is, after all, an Internet-spawned neologism. If the argument is that FAQs should not be acceptable as sources, then that's a valid argument, but this isn't the correct forum to make it in. Shimeru 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Point is now moot, however, as I've found print sources. Ironically, they cite, among other things, those very FAQs. The information can now no longer be said to be original research, nor lacking editorial oversight. Shimeru 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You've found a few mentions in reliable sources, great! I still think it should be merged and redirected to Furry fandom. But it is good work you've put in. - Francis Tyers · 11:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I would disagree. I'm certain there's more out there, so the article could be further expanded. I won't be the one to do it, since the subject makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but given a topic I knew to be both notable and verifiable, I was compelled to do this much. Any personal biases I may have are, after all, irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia. Shimeru 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)