Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Fan creations section has no refrences

There are only 3 refrences in those paragraphs, one of which links to Wikifur, which is not a proper citation since it is a wiki. I am deleting most of that section until more citations pop up. 69.160.28.78 19:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would've actually read the WikiFur article, you would've found out that the article is about the book, and is not the source itself. Therefore, I have reverted your edit. Also, not every single sentence on this wiki needs a source, especially not if things are obvious as "One of the oldest and largest MUCKs in existence is FurryMUCK. One of the newest virtual environments to attract furry fans is Second Life." are, or are you disputing that these sentences are true?

Strictly speaking, every single fact should have a reference. Common knowledge is a dangerous thing to rely on - some believe that if the average man on the street (on any street) does not know it, it is not common. For (almost) an example of how to reference to that standard, see Samuel Conway.

As for quality of references, wikis are often not considered to be a verifiable source, because they are changeable by everyone and many have no review or fact-checking process whatsoever. Personally I would just use inline links if there is a topic that is very definitely furry and not sufficiently notable, rather than list it as an official "reference", unless there really was no other good source and I was pretty darn sure that the information was accurate (from my own checking) and would remain in the article.

That said, I have the book, and that is what it claims. As such, I would suggest that the reference be changed to the book itself. If you want to confirm it, read the book. GreenReaper 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And, are you User:Inkbottle [1]? If not, why have you signed with his username? --Conti|✉ 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was too lazy to sign in. And thanks for clearing all that up. 69.160.28.78 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Odd Facts" section

I just nipped this out, as it was unsourced and speculative. Opinions? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck put that there? --π! 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Er, well, a quick look at the history reveals User:Dalhusky. This was only his second Wikipedia edit, the other of which was also questionable and reverted.) --π! 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur with removal. The first "odd fact" seemed to reflect the notion that furry is largely a sexual fetish. --Mwalimu59 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But furry IS largely a sexual fetish. Still though, that section is nonsense and thus gets the boot. 69.160.28.78 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke, right? --Mwalimu59 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No. And this conversation never happened. 69.160.28.78 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Charitable works

Many furry groups and conventions raise money for good causes, or otherwise sponsor charitable activities.

A subsection on this wouldn't be inappropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request that this article be locked

I would like to apologise for the people who try to keep this article either incredibly pro-furry or incredibly anti-furry. I've been in the furry fandom for quite some time now( about 4 years), and i've come to realise that alot of furries are very sensitive about how the furry fandom is depicted on the mainstream media, and the internet in general. Before i continue i would like to state that i am neither pro, nor anti furry, and that the following is derived from my personal experiences in the furry fandom.

To understand the problems of this article, you have to understand that a significant part of the furry fandom has one or more sexual fetishes, including almost every known fetish imaginable (and some that you probably cannot imagine). You can devide the furry fandom in several camps, like moderate furries, furry-lifestilers or the more extreme furries. The camp i'm talking about is the more extreme ones. They are responsible for the more unussual stuff that can be found in the furry fandom. They write about it, and draw art depicting it. Because these furries have such an unussual taste, they are an easy targets for internet Trolls( who actively search for unussual stuff to make fun of). These trolls then spread this stuff around to other people, eventually creating a group of people who sees nothing but negative things about furries. This is the cause of the anti-fur people. Because trolls spread this stuff aroundso much, the other furries( those not so extreme) also get pestered by it. The problem is that a number of furries get so frustrated of these trolls that they do the opposite of the trolls. They feel that the image of the furry fandom has been severely hurt by the trolls, so they try to balance it by trying to create a pro-furry image, where everything is okay, and there is nothing weird about the furry fandom( while, offcourse, there are a number of aspects that can easily be classified as weird). These people make up the pro-furries, and are probably responsible for the one-sidedness of this article.

I have two suggestions that could solve this article's problems. Firstly i suggest that this article is locked, and that a limited number of people are given access to it, so they can try to make a good( as in; up to wikipedia's standards) article about furries. My second idea is that instead of locking the article, there be created two furry articles, one pro-furry, and one anti-furry, and that these two be merged into one later on. 01:49, 21 October 2006 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.170.62 (talk • contribs) .

Both suggestions cannot be fulfilled, because they both go against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Articles can be protected from editing, but only for short periods of time to deal with vandalism or edit wars. It is not possible to limit editing privileges to a few chosen people. We also do not create "pro" and "con"-sided articles, as all of our articles have to be neutral. If the "criticism"-section of an article gets too big, it can become its own article, but that doesn't mean that it is allowed to hold a certain POV. --Conti|✉ 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What you see here today is the result of that pro/anti process on a smaller scale. Instead of writing whole articles, people tend to add sections. Often, these sections are biased in one way or another. Editors work to reduce the bias either way.

If you can point out specific cases where you think this is not happening, I would encourage you to do so. The main issue that I see is that members of the fandom are able and willing to provide good references for their edits, while the anti-fandom seem unable or unwiling to do so. My suspicion is that this is because "well-known" claims of fandom activities are in fact not all that accurate.

It's OK to be weird. I think most people reading the article would consider the fandom a little weird. But what we have had to deal with are claims that equate to "a significant proportion of furries have sex in fursuit" and the like, which are then not referenced. There is a problem there, because it reinforces a stereotype that they can't prove . . . because it isn't actually true. GreenReaper 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to GreenReaper: it is possible to semi-protect articles that suffer from serious vandalism, so that only logged in users who have held a WP account for four days can edit. However, unless the article is constantly vandalised in this way (eg Jew), that semi-protection is a temporary measure, to be removed when the spate of attacks has finished. Loganberry (Talk) 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The bots actually do a pretty good job of protecting the page nowadays. Either that or too many people have it on their watchlist. ;-) GreenReaper 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the post at the top of this section.

As one of the people who has been accused of deliberately trying to put too positive a spin on things, I would like to make something clear. I came here to help write an article on the furry fandom, not the entire friggin’ furry community, which at the time was well covered in a number of other articles that have since been merged with this page under protest.

I submit that the actual furry fandom has absolutely nothing to do with fetishes, lifestyles, or anything else that could be regarded as anymore freaky than any other fandom for any other form of art. The reason what I wrote seemed overly positive was because I was writing about the actual furry fandom that nobody else here seems to understand.

When you write about a fandom, you generally attempt to explain the art form, venues in which fans of that art form meet, crafts that fans employ in the celebration of that art form, and other things of that nature. At the point where you start writing anything that passes some kind of positive or negative judgment on the majority of the fandom, you are no longer being encyclopedic, academic or clinically detached. You are indulging in opinions or repeating hearsay that can not be legitimately substantiated.

I didn't do that. I never said this is good or bad. I just said this is the genre that is the center pin of the fandom. That center pin encompasses a lot of historically attractive things. So the trolls looked in and said, "Hey, he's making furry fandom look attractive. That can't be right." Well, dang it, it's not my fault not even the majority of people in the community take the time to examine the genre and see what an attractive thing it is on its own without any spin at all.

And it was not my place to balance that attractiveness by including hearsay, accusations or by making a big deal out of things like people in the furry fandom have fetishes or the online furry community has trolls. People in every fandom have fetishes and every online community has trolls. These were not facts peculiar to furry fandom, and I was not required to include them just because I didn’t want furry fandom looking too good for the benefit of those who have something against it.

Now, I know well that Wikipedia allows you to print unsubstantiated hearsay if you can find some other source to quote it from. But Wikipedia places no onus on you to verify that your source is in fact accurate. Actually, it forbids you from doing so. And unfortunately, so little has been written on the actual furry fandom that there is nothing out there for you to reference that is not at the very least misleading, if not just outright wrong.

Furry fandom is a name that has been mistakenly used for years by people who either don’t know or care about what it means. That does not alter the responsibility of an encyclopedia to dig beneath the misuse of the term, get to the accurate definition, and put the stuff that is not actually relative to it in another article.

The article all these controversial lifestyles, fetishes, and otherwise shocking items belong in would be titled The Furry Community. The Furry Community all but dismissed furry fandom ages ago. But they keep using the name for no logical reason, in total indifference to the fact that the real furry fandom still exists and deserves its separate identity, along with its separate reputation, its separate definition, and it’s separate Wikipedia article.

The reason I got so upset when I was attacked for “putting a positive spin on things” was because I had been working very hard to be clinical and encyclopedic. And at the point where that attack started, the article was about as close to encyclopedic neutrality as it has ever been. And it was, in fact, an article about the actual fandom. Something that is very hard to find on the net. Plus, it was generating a lot of buzz from people who were happy to finally see an accurate representation of their fandom in such a prominent place.

It was a great disappointment to me to realize that it wasn't going to stay that way. But that is the ultimate failure of Wikipedia’s concept. No matter how hard you work to get the page accurate and neutral, there will always be some troll coming in, insisting that the article is prejudicial because it deals only with the fandom instead of dealing with the entire community. And instead of defending the accuracy of what is already there, you guys will compromise the page to appease the trolls, confusion will reign, and in the end you’ll be right back where you started from.

I have personally sworn off this never ending exercise in futility due to lack of free time, but I resent the good effort I put into this page being demeaned as trying to put a positive spin on things. There has never been anybody here trying to put a deceptively positive spin on things. There have only been those trying to get some sense of truth in the article, some people trying to keep it encyclopedic, and some people trying to write prejudices, misconceptions and bad jokes into it. And I can’t honestly say some of the furries here haven’t been just as guilty of the latter as the trolls. Perri Rhoades 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Are furries even real? I heard that they were just a creation of internet trolls to enrage those with a moral compass (Just like a shocksite!). Maybe the furry fandom is just an elaborate prank... Whirling Sands 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It'd have to be a pretty good prank to bring 2,489 people to Pittsburgh for Anthrocon 2006 (check out the media coverage section). But you're a troll, so you should know that. :-) GreenReaper 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is not relevant to the discussion of this article; I strongly suggest deleting it.Comme le Lapin 07:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding Furry

1. If a cartoon or comic has anthromorphic characters in it (e.g. Looney Toons or Dilbert), does that make it furry?
2. If one likes that cartoon or comic, does that make one furry?
3. If one goes on a corporate retreat where they identify themselves with an animal or animal spirit, does that make one furry?

Anomo 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A cartoon that has a single furry character in it is not a furry cartoon on the whole. But the character is a furry character. And anything with a furry character in it may be of interest to furry fans. The more furry characters a cartoon has, the more furry it may be considered on the whole. Peanuts would properly be classed as a regular cartoon with a couple of furry characters in it. The Get-Along Gang is a completely furry cartoon because all the characters are animals.

If one likes general cartoons and has no specific orientation on the furry ones, but rather likes all cartoons equally, that is a general cartoon fan. But if the cartoon fan is especially interested in the furry cartoons and regards them as something separate, that is a furry fan.

In the case of spiritualism, whether one is a furry or not pretty much depends on if they choose to call themselves one. Many people with spiritual beliefs involving animals choose not to call themselves furries and have a number of other names they may call themselves, such as Therian or Otherkin. Often whether a spiritualist chooses to call himself a furry depends on how much interest he also has in the furry art forms. Those that are not interested in the artistic side of things tend to regard it more like a religion or philosophy than a fandom, and don't like to cheapen it by confusing it with the cartoon fandom. Perri Rhoades 04:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are some comic/cartoons/etc. things considered officially furry (as in List of furry comics) but others are not like Br'er rabbit, Aesop's fables, and things called Kemono (like Sonic the Hedgehog)? Anomo 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, because they were created specifically for the furry fandom (in this case, usually by a member of it). Other times, because a significant proportion of the market for them is compsed of the furry fandom, or a significant proportion of the furry fandom is interested in them. It is a subjective judgement, and one which is not always appreciated by the creators, who tend to feel they should be the ones with the right to say what genre the comic is in. GreenReaper 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also not appreciated by the fans who rarely, if ever, look at a list before deciding whether to call something furry or not, and wouldn't know what else to call it if you told them not to call it furry. In short, it's elitism impressed on others from certain factions of the fandom, and on the for real side of things, has no meaning.

There are cartoons and there are furry cartoons, but the general cartoon market makes no distinction. It’s just another pointless point of view for fans to fight with each other over, that in the end makes no difference at all. Perri Rhoades 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, what's with all the useless labels? If you're a furry, you're a furry. If you're not, you're not. Unless furries have reached into the "people are born furries, so it's not a question of self-identity, it's a question of nature" kettle, then spending time defining who isn't and who is a furry (here or in article space) seems pretty pointless, since it's a question of a persons self-identity. As for comics etc., no way, that makes pretty much any animated movie ever furry just because it has a humanesque animal in it. And Dilbert?! What?!?! It seems to me like something is a "furry comic/cartoon/whatever" if it's meant to be, not if it has a sentient animal in it. It's not logical to let a fandom or any other group have the cultural leeway to slap their labels on anything they please (not that I'm saying that's what furries do, I have no idea one way or the other), so even if a furry says "X is a FURRY thing", that doesn't make it so. I for one don't want furries or anyone else deciding my identity by picking and choosing what cultural elements "belong" to them. As far as List of furry comics or whatever goes, if that's all "furry-defined" labels of popular, not-necessarily-made-for-furries-like-Sonic-the-Hedgehog-or-whatever comics maybe it should be PURGED. Miltopia 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside the fandom in the real world of entertainment classifications, there is absolutely no such thing as a furry comic or cartoon. This is something entirely thought up by the fandom, which is not even agreed upon by the fandom.

The Furry Genre has been officially recognized, but not as a specific type of entertainment. Rather, The Furry Genre revolves around certain types of anthropomorphic characters which may appear in just about anything. Every anthropomorphic or talking animal character is linked to The Furry Genre, but this does not change the classification of the work in question. There are no furry books, movies, cartoons or comics. There are only books, movies, cartoons or comics with furry characters in them. And even so, those characters do not belong to the fandom. The fandom merely pays homage to them.

Someone might say, "Well, I'm a furry and I created this for the fandom." But a funny animal comic by any other name would still be a funny animal comic, and that won't stop people from outside the fandom from enjoying it just like they would any other funny animal comic. Thus, the idea that you're doing something different because you make it with the fandom in mind is just an illusion. You're practicing an art form that is over 100 years old. You can't just suddenly make it new or deny your artistic heritage by slapping a different name on it. Well, at least not in anyone’s mind but your own.

So I agree that it should be purged or merged with the funny animals comics list. Perri Rhoades 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Furries suck.

Don't you think you should mention something about the fact that furries are the most opposed group of people on the Internet? Yeah, I admit it, I HATE furries and that's why I'm saying this, but even so I'm not gonna go vandalising your precious Wikipedia article. However, you should at least include a section about the anti-social attitudes of many furries, their tendancy to look down upon "mundanes," their victim complexes, etc. The level of educated, legitimate criticism leveled towards the general attitude of the furry fandom is FAR greater than that towards any other fandom or subculture. Within "fandom" in general, where different subgenres often get along, i.e. many anime nerds respect trekkies and vice-versa, furries are almost never seen as "equal" with anyone, and at the bottom of the chain.

Of course, I doubt any real furry would have the ability to see anything negative about their precious little world. -Anonymous /b/tard

If that sort of information is documented in a reliable secondary source, like some kind of book or study about internet culture that notes the special place occupied by furries at the bottom of the ridicule-chain, then we could include it. Otherwise, no. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You could hire someone unbiased to make a survey about that, considering there have been no surveys concerning the fandom since '98. 69.160.28.78 04:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That would constitute original research. Perri Rhoades 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Would that make the survey already in here original reasearch? 69.160.28.78 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

They're both research. The original part typically pertains to whether or not it is an opinion or argument that has previously been published, or whether it is created by the person writing the article. That is, you do not write a thesis on Wikipedia - it is not a place to publish work. Instead, you publish it elsewhere and then cite it. The sticking point is that material that is self-published is generally not considered as a reliable source, except possibly on itself - this includes pretty much all personal websites, and would include any survey that is published by the furry fandom, as opposed to (say) Nature. So yes, it's probably original research as far as Wikipedia goes. That said, it's the best we've got (or are likely to get in the immediate future), the survey methods are documented and seem reasonable, and the results are non-controversial. I don't personally have any argument with its inclusion in the article with a disclaimer over its age and origin. GreenReaper 05:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a lot of negative things to say about it, but they're not admissible to a Wikipedia article. They end up on my personal web pages and in my Live Journal. Perri Rhoades 15:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those will end up on Wikipedia if you disagree with the wrong furry about deletion or similar subjects. Not in the article, just the talk pages. Miltopia 11:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things: You're either exaggerating a lot or not being very precise (they're hardly even the most made fun of - that goes to politicians - and I'm sure many classes of criminals are even "more opposed"), and the difference between "you're looked down upon by 40% of the general population because you're extremely nerdy and eccentric" and "you're looked down upon by 45% of the population because 80% of the most internet-literate nerds also look down on you for other reasons" hardly matters for the audience this article is intended for. —AySz88\^-^ 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And, a lot of furry haters don't realize the full scope of "furry" art. The Sonic the Hedgehog series, for example, would be classified as being furry. --Luigifan 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, allow me to comment: No. Sonic the Hedgehog, independent of what those who identify themselves as Furries or not Furries, believe, is not an example of "Furry art". The reason for this is, that although the subculture may like it, and it may fit predominantly common archetypes among what is liked by members of the Furry subculture, this does not make it Furry art, and the art of Sonic is in no way attributable to the Furry subculture by way of scope, content, creation, rights, themes, or anything else. This would be like I, as a Buddhist, saying that because a comic contains a group of vegetarian characters or pacifists, it's a Buddhist comic. (Alright, I'm tired and that's a poor analogy, but I'm trying to say that because group A likes something, it does not make it a subset of qualities assigned to group A. A better example, which just occurred to me, is that Star Trek is liked by general science fiction fans, AND by Trekkies, and while Trekkies may like it and respect it, and know more about it, and identify with it more than some (but NOT all) general science fiction fans, it is not the sole province nor overly identified with Trekkies except as an aid to definition and an acknowledgement that some, but not all, may be linked to one derivation of Star Trek.) Darn, I need to get a wikipedia account since this will be unsigned, and I've meant to start writing articles. Well, cheers, just figured I'd say a word for how the medium, unless explicitly stated as a sybset of a given group or subculture, is neutral, and that its impartial leanings as a mode of entertainment, edification, and enjoyment (all of the above in the case of Sonic.), are left intact despite a group's opinions on it. Thanks.

No, the Sonic the Hedgehog series is furry because it is primarily about the anthropomorphic animals. If it's got anthropomorphic animals, it's furry art. There's nothing more to it than that. --Luigifan 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sonic falls into quite a few categories. Some of which are Anthropomorphics, Funny Animals, Anime, Video Games, TV Cartoons, and there are a few more.

To say Sonic is Furry Art is a little deceptive. The term Furry Art most commonly refers to fan art, or non-professional art made by fans. Sonic is a professional franchise. What Sonic does fall in, however, is The Furry Genre, which is actually a sub-metagenre of Anthropomorphics that specifically deals with animal characters, and which is not defined by the fandom, but by the parameters of the genre. And since Sonic falls well within those parameters, it’s not illegitimate to refer to him as a furry character.

This in no way infers that Sonic belongs to the fandom. The fandom, in fact, owns nothing. All anthropomorphic characters belong to their respective creators who can call them anything they want, but can not do anything about the classifications certain types of characters fall under. There is no way even the creator of the series can stop Sonic from being in The Furry Genre, and thus the object of furry fandom. Perri Rhoades 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey dispute?

Hello. I notice that the furry community is using Wikipedia to flaunt a survey with some statistics meant to discredit any "inaccurate perceptions" of furries. I have nothing against furries. In fact, I have a couple of furry friends, which is why I looked at this page. What I do have something against is bias, exxagerations, and unreliable sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability).

The survey in question, by David J. Rust, was not performed by an independent sociologist, but by a furry (see http://www.visi.com/~phantos/fursonae.html and related pages). He may be perfectly ok at giving out surveys, but since he is a furry he would have something to gain by fudging the data. I am not throwing any accusations, but the way it usually works is that studies are normally done by independent sources. This study is akin to corporate advertising or government propaganda. This does not belong in an encyclopedia, but since there seems to be nothing else out there, it is ok with me if the survey stays. However, I would like to keep the paragraph after the survey, stating that caution should be used when reading it (I explained why in the article).

If there are any non-furries who disagree, please argue here. In the meantime I would ask anyone who is affiliated with the furry fandom to leave the section as it is. Nuzz604 22:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I fought to keep the survey out all together, because it obviously doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I have no dispute with the disclaimer as it is now. Perri Rhoades 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "inaccurate perceptions" bit is probably not appropriate (it sounds like wiki editors putting an original spin on the research), but the survey itself seemed pretty reasonable to me. Yes, it wasn't taken by a separate person, and that counts against it, but the steps taken to try to ensure identity were are presented along with the survey. I don't think there's anything wrong with the figures - frankly, if it had been biased, I have to think the figures would be less likely to confirm many of the "odd" stereotypes, such as polyamory and bisexuality. GreenReaper 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a furry, but I don't think that somehow disbars me from comment here - and nor do I think that not being a furry would automatically make me unbiased. (And it's not as if Rust didn't declare his interest!) So... I was (I think) the person who added the bits about Rust's survey to the old furry lifestyler article, some time before it was merged with this one. I absolutely agree with the inclusion of a disclaimer, and had I thought about it more clearly I'd have put one in myself in the first place. However, there simply isn't any serious statistical research on the subject, and that means an (unsatisfactory) choice between referring to work such as Rust's or not mentioning the subject at all.

Since the high proportion of non-heterosexuals in furry (or at least, the perception of such) is something that is very widely remarked upon within the fandom, not mentioning it at all would be plain silly. I do understand WP:V and as I said earlier, I support having a disclaimer here. Actually, though, I think the main problems with Rust's work are ones that aren't mentioned at all: the fact that 97% of the respondents were North American, and that the data is extremely old. (From Rust's site: "the results of the limited survey work I performed during the years 1997 and 1998" (my emphasis). I have edited the section to make this clear: before, it implied wrongly that the data as well as the interpretation came from 2002. Loganberry (Talk) 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of consider myself a furry as well, though certain factions of the community do try to blow me out the box sometimes.

Being a furry doesn't disqualify you from commenting. I think the only people who would know enough about the subject to write an article about it would have to either be furries or be fur friendly. All anyone else in the world knows about it is prejudicial hearsay. And, if Wikipedia insisted that all articles be written by people who don't know what they're talking about, this would be a very dumb site indeed.

Anyway, the thing most people don't seem to get is that Wikipedia is not about things that are frequently commented on by individuals. But that's what everyone who comes in here busting our chops for is insisting that we do. And we have, from time to time, seriously bent the Wikipedia rules to placate these people by allowing stuff in the article that would never make it into any other Wikipedia article.

I'm not disputing that just about anywhere you go in the furry net community you're going to run into a lot of gay people. But that doesn't really tell us anything factual about the fandom as a whole. Not every furry openly participates. The high concentration of gays, lifestylers and porn nuts populating the online community may actually be alienating the majority of the fandom and keeping them from being counted in any surveys that are done. I know nobody ever throws up one of these surveys in a place where I would be counted.

So, what we have here is basically an unsubstantiated impression that can't be accurately documented in a way that would meet Wikipedia's standards for a reference. Thus, to include anything about it at all is just putting in rumors, and we're not supposed to do that.

The thing I really hate about the survey we're using now is that it proves nothing, except that the furry fandom looks a lot like just about any other fandom sexuality wise. And if all those other fandoms don't need a sexuality pole in their articles, the only reason for one being in the furry fandom article is someone's attempt to make an issue of something that shouldn't be an issue, at least not to this article. Some people just can't stand that this article does not further the prejudice that all furries are gay. But I can personally testify that they're not all gay.

Even the argument that furries are more accepting of gays than other fandoms is suspect. I've been in lots of other fandoms, and have never known one of them to be gay unfriendly.

So, until somebody comes up with some conclusive info that a little logic won't rip holes in a mile wide, or even bad info that is published by a so called reputable source, no mention of sexuality at all belongs in an article about furry fandom.

Now, an article about lifestylers might be different. But some a-holes gave into popular prejudice and screwed the lifestylers over by denying them a page that specifically focuses on what they're about. Most of the trouble and controversy that goes on around here could be avoided if somebody would undo that travesty. Perri Rhoades 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't insist on non-expert writing, but they do expect everything written to be possible to confirm through reliable sources. Their position is that it should be possible for just about anyone to write this article (or any other article) - because they should just need to refer to what other people have said about the topic and had published in third-party fact-checked journals or news - and if they can't do that then a topic is not verifiable and shouldn't be written about at all. In this particular situation what the majority of news outlets have said is (at best) a simplified version of the whole truth, which is unfortunate. This is part of why the furry lifestyler article was deleted - because it did not provide sufficiently good references that established it as separate from the topic of furry fandom (most likely because news sources themselves often confuse the two, just lumping it all in under "furries", just as everything Star Trek-related becomes "Trekkie"). Saying "well, they're wrong" is not going to work, because you have no way of proving it to their satisfaction. We can't pick and choose, saying "you must have a reliable source for this assertion but just trust us as experts on the rest", because that's a double standard.

I honestly do not think you would have obtained the objective you seem to desire even if that article existed. If nothing else, there appears to be a significantly large proportion of gay lifestyle situations, erotica and pornography in the fandom, on a par with that of straight mature content. In many cases, the sexuality is part of the nature of the work and can't be separated from it. Associated Student Bodies and Circles are popular examples of this kind of work - and let's not forget Volle, which won the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Novel, while being noted as "adult-only graphically homoerotic" by none other than Fred Patten. Certainly, it's not "all gay", but the prevalence of homosexual material still seems pretty unusual to me. It would be possible to claim that gay artists (or writers) are more likely to draw than straight artists, or are more prolific, or that straight artists like drawing gay characters more than gay artists like drawing straight characters - but the simplest explanation seems to be that there are as many gay artists as straight artists. That seems like a notable fact that influences the fandom. GreenReaper 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people I know who wrote on the topic of the recent cub porn issue at Fur Affinity put it straight forward. People draw porn because it sells. Mediocre artists stake out fetishes to avoid competition, and all the people out to sell sexual material create and perpetuate the illusions you observe. Meanwhile, the people out to do non-pornographic works feel like they can't get arrested in the fandom. See this Journal Entry for reference. http://cuprohastes.livejournal.com/286360.html

Another interesting point that was made is that there is no way of gauging how much non-porn furry merchandise fans are buying outside of fandom venues. So what you see happening at conventions or on Rabbit Valley is in no way an accurate measure of fandom interest.

Personally, I like the notion of "If you can't verify it, don't write about it." If Furry Fandom is indeed this mysterious thing that hardly anything has been written about in professional sources, a very short bare facts article would be in order. Fortunately, I think that's almost what we've got it cut down to now. Perri Rhoades 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

About the new criticism section

I don't dislike it, but it looks suspiciously like a lot of stuff that was in the article before and was determined to be inappropriate. There's quite a few weasel words in it and other stuff that doesn't need to be there. I think the article was good the way it was, and it took a long time to get it that way. I don't fancy watching another knock down drag out battle over stuff that's already been discussed and decided upon. Can I get some agreement on a revert, or do y'all fancy riding this merry-go-round again? Perri Rhoades 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even any objections? *Shrugs and reverts the page* Perri Rhoades 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about it could be deemed weasel words? And is no criticism of the fandom allowed? I thought that this would be a good way to balance things out... 76.18.140.105 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, who said there was an imbalance? We hashed that business out months ago. the solution was to adhere to Wikipedia rules and cut out anything that couldn't be verified from a proper source. This caused the article to be stripped down to a minimum of verifiable facts, and it is quite good the way it is now.

Weasel words are like "Some furries say" or "Some sites do this or that." The use of these words is a red flag to look out for unverified info. And sure enough, you had used two Wikifur pages as source references, which we determined earlier was not acceptable, because wiki pages can change at any time, or some other reason I don't remember.

Another thing is, that section you put in looks very familiar. As in it looks suspiciously like a section that was in the article a few months ago which we had a big war over. I don't want to accuse you of lifting it from the record, since I'm too lazy to search the record, but the fact is most of this stuff has been hashed and rehashed, and to my perception, nothing new was visible that hadn't already been added and rejected several times.

I called for other opinions, but when not getting a response after a certain amount of time I figured I'd better revert the page before we had more edits and no longer had the option of reverting. But what you wrote is still in the record, and if the others see it as being proper they can always revert it back.

I appreciate your effort and don't mean to make you feel like your services are unwelcome or anything. It's just that you were working from the false premise that there is still a dispute when the dispute is long over and is well documented in the record. What's on the page now seems to satisfy the majority of the editors here, and this page is semi quiet after months of commotion. Going backwards doesn't seem a good idea to me.

Is criticism allowed? Yes, but only if you take it from a proper source. And it has been determined that sites like SA don't constitute such a source. Even CYD is limited in its uses. The fact that the mainstream looks on the fandom as weird or funny is well documented in the media section (whatever we're calling it now.) And we have the survey thingie. But Wikipedia rules don't allow much leeway for including the opinions of fans or trolls, neither of whom frequently contribute to what are considered reputable sources. Thus, any further criticism that exists seems beneath Wikipedia's view. Perri Rhoades 03:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, History, inclusion of Controversy section

As a reasonably informed outsider, I feel certain aspects of this article should be called to the attention of editors. I have tried to be objective in my assessment, and in no case will I wax judgmental toward the article, authors, or subject.

This article appears to be primarily authored by individuals who identify with the group that is the subject of the article. Despite the authors' best intentions, the article comes off as having a nearly propagandistic tone despite its factual correctness. This limits its reach and usefulness as an informative piece for those external to furry fandom.

The history segment, while extensive, could use more organization. Better progression could be made by creating two subsections. The first would discuss the rise of anthropomorphism in various works (literature, animated films, comics, etc). Mention Aesop's Fables here! The second subsection of history would deal with the formation of the fandom as an extension of these earlier works. All information related to the creation of the fandom, early conventions and the establishment of annual conventions, artwork trading, and other such things should be placed in this second subsection.

I understand there is some controversy as to what extent individuals in the fandom extend it into their lives. Consider something like the following, which is the best concept I can glean from the article:

Some members of the fandom join simply due to an appreciation for anthropomorphic story telling or art. Others go further by developing anthro characters to represent themselves and may engage in role playing as these characters. A select and controversial group of the fandom carries this role playing into their sexual life by engaging in creation and consumption of erotic anthropomorphic content and costume role playing, effectively carving a new sexual fetish from their activity in the fandom.

Please consider these ideas in the next revision of this article.

"A propagandistic tone despite its factual correctness." I just don't see it. It's just saying what it is, based on what little useable info is available. It's not saying "Furry Fandom is this great thing nobody has ever criticized and you should all want to join post haste." It's been repeatedly sterilized of POV. So, unless you've got some new useable documentation we can work from, we can't do anything but start throwing POV back in.

Still, you've got some good ideas there. I'm sure we'll keep them in mind if we get some new references that necessitate a rewrite. Perri Rhoades 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty propagandic. There's certainly been negative portrayls of the fandom in the mainstream press, and many, many people online absolutely despise furries. Its pretty blatent reading through the article that it is pro-furry and needs a controversy or criticism section. Furry is not a happy-land full of clean art, and this article minimizes a large portion of the fandom which is, frankly, disturbing to the population at large. Titanium Dragon 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion on how large a part it plays. Can you provide some reliable sources to verify the large part it plays?--Crossmr 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here’s the thing. All these so called negative portrayals in the mainstream media aren’t really negative. The famous SCI episode isn’t about furries at all. It’s about some fictional plush fursuit cult that doesn’t even really exist. And, after watching the Drew Carey clip, I have to say, that looked pretty gosh darn positive. Other articles, such as Vanity Fair deal almost exclusively with lifestylers and never even touch on the fandom. While we have documentation in the article that the lifestylers and the fandom are two different things. So, where is all this reliable documentation that furry fandom is any more controversial or hated than any other fandom? Furthermore, I’d think something that was hated that much by folks on the internet would be ignored by them. I think these people love furry fandom to death and would be lost for something to laugh at if it weren’t there. So, show me some documentation that furry fandom is hated, rather than loved for being funny, or that either view is any more than your opinion and mine. Perri Rhoades 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be joking? Apart from the MTV special, the Vanity Fair thing, and the massive griping by a number of members of the community, you've got a number of fairly active hate sites, the Portal of Evil (which loves making fun of it), Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, the Burned Furs, and a wide variety of complains, con reports, and similar documenting this behavior. PvP, Penny Arcade, Something Positive, and a number of other webcomics have made fun of furries. There are large numbers of furry porn artists, and entire repositories full of it, such as VCL. Many (perhaps most) furry MUCKs have "adults only" sections for explicit activities. Ect. Titanium Dragon 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[[2]] is one of the better such sites; a lot of sites make fun of them, but CYD describes why the fandom is out of control. It is itself run by furries, many of whom agree with the "furries = insane" hypothesis. Titanium Dragon 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would note that CYD's stated purpose is to "document the more outstandingly bizarre aspects of the furry fandom", "for our own amusement". They are not a news site - they are the site where people go when they want to make fun of the weird stuff. By their own admission, they are not trying to be "fair". And that's fine, and sometimes they turn up good material that makes people laugh, but it's important to remember that their purpose is ridicule of the exceptional for their amusement, not measured criticism. :-) GreenReaper 12:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware they do it for their own amusement; that being said, they do document this and there are numerous articles on it about people leaving the fandom due to its obsession with sex (and interviews with aforementioned people), criticism of many, many furries (and many prominent ones), and the like. It may be done for their own amusement, but they do criticize furries (and do a lot of research on them). Titanium Dragon 01:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go back a ways in the archive you'll find discussion of this subject in which it was determined that CYD does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. And, as for leaving the fandom because of its obsession with sex, that is actually why I left anime fandom, but I don't think I could get anything about that written in the anime article. Further, there is no documentation to show that these people actually left furry fandom, or if they just changed to a different message board group that better suited their interest, or if they are carrying on in the fandom away from the idiocy that goes on on the internet. See, nobody knows. And what nobody knows can’t be written in a reputable source, and consequently can't be written in Wikipedia. Sucks, don't it? Perri Rhoades 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can find NO such consensus. What I do find is that a handful of furries have claimed it isn't a reliable source. I'm bringing it up because it IS a reliable source on what some critics say of the furry fandom; there's no reason it isn't reliable. Numerous satirical or humorous criticisms have been used; humor is a common way of criticizing something. Look at the Colbert Report, which is a satire of Fox News, and particularly Bill O'Reilly. South Park has criticized a number of things (including scientology) by making fun of them (though in the scientology episode, it actually states some of their real beliefs with "this is what scientologists really believe" on the screen, and arguably it is an even better way of making fun of them as it is terribly true). Numerous websites and persons have linked furries to sexual deviancy, fetishes (particularly zoophilia), pedophilia ("cub" pornographic art), and similarly negative things. Titanium Dragon 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You've cited a number of targets of humorous and satirical criticisms, including President Bush and scientology, claiming that the satirical/humorous nature of the sites does not necessarily undermine their validity as criticisms. I would observe that certainly in these two cases and probably in most others you've cited, there is no shortage of non-humorous/satirical criticisms from reputable sources. If you're going to write an article critical of President Bush, you're generally not going to rely on humor/satire as a source simply because there are more than enough sources that are more serious and more reputable. Now consider furry fandom. Does it not seem a bit odd that the primary sources you wish to cite are satirical or humorous ones? If the criticisms from those sources are valid, where are the more reputable sources that the satire is based upon? I would contend that in the absence of such secondary sources, the satire's reputability as a source is questionable at best. --Mwalimu59 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My site is currently a topic of discussion on SA. I don’t see any hate there. Just folks looking for something to laugh at. This also gave me an excuse to look at their other topics. I couldn’t find hardly anything about furries among all the other stuff they talk about. The same could be said of Portal Of Evil. They hardly specialize in hating furries. I see no evidence of this unusually noteworthy hatred you speak of. All I see is a lot of people getting off on the fact that furries are funny, and what higher compliment could you pay to a fandom for funny animals? Perri Rhoades 10:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We've been down this road before, and incorporating misinformation from Crush Yiff Destroy into the article is considered vandalism as per WP:VAND. Any criticism or arguments against furry fandom—that is, the fandom revolving around the appreciation of anthropomorphic animals (as opposed to the multitude of unrelated interests outside the scope of this article which the folks at CYD believe it is about)—should be able to stand on their own merits instead of hackneyed attempts at "humor" from people who want to carry out their idiotic little vendettas against the fandom. Just because these guys like making stuff up about furries doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedic article on furry fandom. —Xydexx 06:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Xydexx, given that you yourself have been featured on CYD for saying that goons who went to a furry convention to make fun of furs should have been drug from their cars and beaten, I'm going to take your opinion with a healthy dose of skepticism. I -knew- your name looked familiar. Titanium Dragon 12:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for proving my point. -:) Your link is a perfect example of the sort of misinformation that is bandied about on CYD and demonstrates precisely why it is unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry on furry fandom. We've seen folks from other "humor" sites try to pull this stunt before. Making stuff up is not valid criticism, so there is no reason to include it. —Xydexx 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you'd deny it; half the point is making fun of that. Its irrelevant though. See below; unless CYD has been mentioned by something important it is no more notable than the Furry Wikipedia and isn't really citable for the article, and a cursory search isn't turning up anything. Titanium Dragon 12:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know they make fun of me. Personally, I think it stopped being funny after the second or third time, but I guess some folks can't come up with fresh material. -:)

I'm well aware they get a big laugh about me correcting misinformation on Wikipedia too. I wish folks would stop trying to add misinformation, as we've seen others attempt this stunt before and all it does is make more work for the editors who'd like Wikipedia to be a useful resource. Either way, you may want to consider whether making fun of me contributes anything of value to Wikipedia. I don't think it does, but YMMV. —Xydexx 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

CYD is a humor site, but criticizing things via humor does NOT mean you aren't criticizing them. For instance, there are numerous books about Bush which are crticial of him and funny; Al Franken has written at least one. Additionally, who brought up that it wasn't a fair source? Xydexx. He claimed it was included for the purpose of ridicule or satire; though it may have been written in that way at the time, the criticisms there are certainly real ones. Several people complained that IPs/anons were editing on the basis of them being such, but such is certainly allowed and there's no reason to exclude them.

Let's look at a few sources of furry criticism:

• Crush! Yiff! Destroy! Yes, it is humorous, but it also definitely criticizes furries. South Park has criticized scientologists; The Colbert Report and The Daily Show both have criticized a large number of things (the former itself is a criticism by parody of Fox), and are quite notable. There is nothing about CYD which excludes it being used.
• Something Awful forums. Yes, they make fun of furries a lot, and denying it is comical. Searching for furries on their site via Google gets tons of hits making fun of them, and many furries themselves have commented on the criticism. Probably largely unusable as a source, unless they've got some centralized FAQ.
• God hates furries. #1 hit for furry hate on Google, and contains a number of criticisms I've seen in several places.
• The Portal of Evil. Much like SA, their dislike of furries is fairly infamous (OMG fursection got directed against them quite a bit). Probably largely unusable as a source, unless they've got some centralized FAQ.
• The Burned Furs. Yes, they've disbanded and rebanded several times; this is the original archieved site.

Furs themselves gripe about "fursecution" and being made fun of quite often.

Looking through the archives, it appears a handful of furries have excluded these and other negative sources from the article, several of whom have been criticized on at least one of the sources they seek to exclude!

Currrently the article puts undue weight on the "clean" side of the fandom. This is wrong and needs to be corrected.

There is a CONSTANT theme of furries removing criticisms in this article, and the article, even BEYOND not having a criticisms section, is biased anyway; it is NOT NPOV and is written to be pro-furry. Titanium Dragon 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the stance CYD takes it is not an acceptable source as laid out in WP:RS because it is a self-published source that has no prior academic or jounalistic credentials. CYD is no diffrent than a self published furrie fan site you find on the web. Wikipedia has higher standards. Everyone needs to make sure they are familiar with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV before they consider submitting a webpage as a source. NeoFreak 14:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see.. As NeoFreak said, Crush! Yiff! Destroy! isn't a Reliable Source per our standards. Neither are the Something Awful forums, because forums in general aren't that reliable. God Hates Furries looks like a blog, so same here. I couldn't find any criticism of furries on Portal of Evil, all I could find were some links to furry homepages that they thought were funny in one way or another. The Burned Fur homepage once again isn't a reliable source, and the "these page kept solely for archival purposes. the group disbanded years ago" doesn't help with that, either. Much more helpful would be, for example, newspaper articles that criticize the fandom. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. So you're saying stuff like the Vanity Fair thing, the CSI thing, ect? Titanium Dragon 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And the Pittsburg Gazette article, which mentions how the furries wouldn't let the reporter ask anyone in fursuits questions when their guide wasn't present? Titanium Dragon 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, given this, why are several of the See Also things just kind of floating there? How is FurryWiki more notable than CYD? Is it mentioned anywhere important? Titanium Dragon 11:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The catalogue of nonhuman fandoms or whatever (citation 28) is not something I've ever heard of before; is it a citable source? Also, the Drew Carrey Show reference should be done externally, not be sourced by WikiFur. Titanium Dragon 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Claws and Paws.com seems to be a personal page; I don't see it as being a very useful source either. Is there some reason it is citeworthy? Titanium Dragon 12:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation #7, best in show, should also be sourced to a real reliable site (where it is sold, likely) rather than to WikiFur. Titanium Dragon 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, there ARE NPOV issues with this article, and as much as one can counter-argue it, and they can, a lot of it needs trimming, a lot needs rephrasing, and, I hate to say it? If all of the positive/neutral stuff in the article is citeable from the sources it's being cited from, then some negative stuff from equally reputable (even if not strictly and completely NPOV) stuff should be placed, at least as external links. Wikipedia's own policy says that, where entirely neutral external sources and links cannot be cited, points from the opposing point of view should at least be presented to allow for critical evaluation. It is a fact, though not a citeable one, that there is an undesireable side to the fandom, and it is not necessarily small (As someone who charstaffs MUSHes and is confronted with truly frightening Furry Fandom members every other day, and has escorted a furry friend to furry conventions and witnessed prevalent attitudes present, I can attest to that.)

Again, this is "original research" and not citeable. So, when I do find some citeable research on the matter, it's going in this article, because it is relevant. Don't expect it to take me long, and at least it will present an opposing point of view of some worth, to go with all of the positive/neutral inclusions at current (nothing which could be objectively interpreted as broadly negative to the populace is included in this article, and even that ALONE makes it suspect. There should be something bad to say about practically everything, and an article truly neutral in scope should be able to derive at least some reliable sources to say as much about almost any given thing. Admittedly, this does not hold for everything, but for a controversial/ill-liked issue? Yes. The entirely positive current spin of the article serves as encouragement to provide the opposite viewpoint. That's what Wikipedia is about: Objective presentation of facts so that the reader can make up their own mind from a more informed position. Many sources used in this article, especially those mentioned directly above this post, are unuseable, and my research over the next little bit should turn up more still, methinks. Be well, all. This article needs clarification and sources for things, hopefully I can help find them. Though, as a brand new editor, this may be slightly beyond my scope until I study more, but I will. " 24.222.214.235 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, there's absolutely no requirement whatsoever that our external sources be NPOV; our -articles- are supposed to be NPOV. Take a gander at the Creationism article or Intelligent Design article - obviously stuff taken from Answers in Genesis isn't going to be neutral. But you can build a neutral article using such materials. No, sources for wikipedia need to be reliable on the subject. Thus, you don't cite 9/11 truth for the main 9/11 attacks article, but you do for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. But yeah, some of the sources above aren't really good ones, but some of them are simply miscited (the last one, for instance). Titanium Dragon 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Urgh, got logged out. That was me above. Raeft 13:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to show me where in WP:NPOV it says put in unverifiable or information that doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS to balance the article out? Because what I see is the opposite: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.. Under undue weight you get:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I don't see any evidence this viewpoint is held by a significant minority. Nowhere in the policy do I see where it says to put unsubstantiated claims in for balance. In the case of wikipedia, Neutral is based on the verifiable and substantial viewpoints available.--Crossmr 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur on your points about WP:NPOV. Wether or not any of the said groups contitute a "significant minority" is up to debate. The entire issue is moot though if no reliable sources can be found to represent those, or any, positions. NeoFreak 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I get for writing in a rush. When I said "My own views are not citeable", I meant quite simply: I'd never put something that was unverifiable and didn't come from a reliable source in an article. Thus, although plenty of POV and unreliable sources exist to state such things, I absolutely don't plan to include a section of valid criticisms (something I feel could be usefully and effectively placed in with an encyclopedic feel), until I can find a source at least as reputable as those currently being used to source the -rest- of the article. For a matter like this, CYD and similar will not do. As such, it may take a bit. When I said "balancing", I chiefly refer to the fact that any given article, through WP: NPOV, should contain all significant points of view. If these views (the ones I and others hold, which I obviously would not put in the article without underlying, citeable, unbiased sources), can't be found in sources at least as reputable as those used to source the rest of the article, they shouldn't be put in. If they are found, and at least as many individuals can be proven to support them through the reliable source they are found at, as support the current statements in the article, from the sources currently used, they're inclusion-worthy, because they pass the same litmus test the current statements do, as long as they are held about the topic, tastefully stated, by a significant minority, yes. Cheers. Raeft 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever said you shouldn't do that. But the problem I encountered, when I tried what you're proposing, was encountering reality. The reality is that Furry Fandom is at best a minor curiosity to the mainstream media. The worst that they will say about it is it's funny or it's a little off the wall. But it never rates a full expose, and it certainly doesn't rate a denouncement.

In the end you will discover that what you want to include are the unsubstantiated ramblings of internet trolls and disgruntled furry fans. This great social hatred of the fandom simply does not exist in the real world. In the real world furry is just another geeky fandom, no more hated or derided than any other fandom.

If you hate furry fandom for some reason or have some problem with it, that proves only one thing. Some people don't like it. And you can't write "Some people don't like it" in a Wikipedia article. I can and have written long essays on the many things I don't like about it. But no professional publication would buy my opinions on such an obscure subject.

We've already been through this with the criticism section that was here before. We worked for quite a while trying to find references to justify it. But the references just aren't there. And the reason they aren't there is because nobody cares about furry fandom except furries. And furries are, by nature, non-professional. Perri Rhoades 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument; several of the sources -cited in this article- include criticism of the fandom which is not well represented in the article. Indeed, most of the initial external reports of the fandom are quite negative, and in popular culture the fandom is portrayed differently than this article. Look at Vanity Fair, look at the MTV special and the CSI episode, look at the portrayl in webcomics, ect. Where do these come from? They aren't fabricated out of thin air, and you know it. There is a perception of the fandom as being strange and participating in/being involved with several fetishes and a lot of "adult"/"mature" stuff. It isn't just made up by internet trolls. It is a real phenomenon which has been reported on a bit and it is underrepresented in the article. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think those who wish to mention more about criticisms of the sexual aspects of the fandom are putting far too much weight on that arena for the purposes of this article - to somebody unfamiliar with it, there is hardly any difference between whether the furry fandom gets x amount of flak for being particularly geeky and nerdy or it gets 1.1*x amount of flak for also having a sexual element that's been publicized by mass media on a number of occasions that can be counted on one's fingers. To make an analogy, the negative attention given to the sexual aspects of the fandom should be a part of this article like animal rights activists should be part of the KFC article (and I feel the article is probably already there). Yiff might be an especially attention-grabbing or controversial aspect, but it's not anywhere close to the defining aspects for the intended audience (remember it's an encyclopedia article, after all!). —AySz88\^-^ 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is sanitized though; it is definitely a part of the fandom even beyond being criticized. Titanium Dragon 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Fan creations section: Unsourced Art and writing: Unsourced Role playing characters: Sourced only for one of its many claims Conventions: Final statement of second paragraph unsourced. Furry lifestylers: final statement of first paragraph unsourced. Claims of furry lifestylers and the fandom being considered seperate UNSOURCED and heavily disputed by me; an example of the pervasive "cleanness".

I've taken the liberty of adding {{Fact}} tags to a number of unsourced statements. Titanium Dragon 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Very cool, much thanks. I'll lend a hand when I have some time. NeoFreak 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you examine the collective sources at the bottom of the page, you will find multiple items drawn from the same source. Some of us just don't like to list the same source for every sentence, because it makes the article hard to read. But the last time I looked, this article had references up the wazoo. I think 30 references for an article of this length and obscurity is pretty remarkable. And you will also note that Burned Fur is there, there’s an article on furverts, not to mention CSI and Vanity Fair. Perri Rhoades 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Is Not Criticism

Wikipedia editors familiar with the John Seigenthaler Sr. controversy last year understand the importance of remaining vigilant against attempts by individuals to incorporate misinformation (Sneaky Vandalism, as per W:VAND) into articles. The fact that this article in the past has (and apparently continues to be) a target for so-called "humor" websites to vandalize in order to get a reaction makes the latest call for a "criticism" section seem dubious at best.

However, as Wikipedia states we should assume good faith, I will for the moment consider this is a serious attempt to incorporate meaningful information into the article, and not yet another excuse to try to include things written for the sole purpose of mocking furries, which would contribute zero value.

As I've said in the past, I have no problem with criticism being added to the article, as long as it's legitimate criticism. The problem is we've seen far too many accusations about the article not being NPOV previously which have relied on things which aren't actually about furry fandom, and thus shouldn't be here in the first place. This is an article about what furry fandom is, not what it isn't.

Be that as it may, I did a little browsing around today and discovered there are additional reasons why the so-called "criticism" section isn't particularly appopriate:

• A criticism section is not required for an article to be NPOV. Similar fannish articles such as the ones for science fiction and anime don't have them, so why should this one be singled out for special treatment? (I also think those articles provide a good reference template for editors interested in improving this one, FWIW.)
• There are better articles to use than sensationalistic tripe that's half a decade old. The inaccuracies and misinformation in the Vanity Fair article (not to mention fictitious TV shows and faked "documentaries") have already been thoroughly discussed and debunked. I think we're being more than lenient with their current inclusion considering there is far more recent and better-researched information on the fandom available to us.
• Repeating lies don't make them true. Just because people are misinformed about the fandom due to getting false info from internet trolls doesn't make Wikipedia an appropriate platform for internet trolls to continue engaging in recreational harassment. If this article is to include criticism it should be able to stand on its own merits, instead of being adding solely for LULZ.
• Criticism against a tiny minority of fans is not the same as criticism against furry fandom. Sites like Crush Yiff Destroy admittedly seek out individual fans to mock for a variety of reasons. Using material from CYD violates both the notability and no personal attacks policies.

There are other issues and concerns as well, such as criticism sections being a magnet for trolls, attempts to compile guilt-by-association arguments which run afoul of no original research, and so on. As one editor mentioned, "just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough."

Despite the (largely overexaggerated) moral panic about furry fandom, there is one case in which a criticism section could actually be useful to this article: to debunk the misconceptions and inaccuracies—such as the false claim that furry fandom is about various fetishes—which were created as a result of the negative press it received initially. The information found in the Dungeons and Dragons and Goth subculture would serve as a useful template for a criticism section.

However, again, I personally think this is not necessary as it would distract from the overall goal of writing an article about furry fandom. If someone has criticism against the fandom, then their argument should be based on real problems, not imaginary ones. —Xydexx 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to "debunk" anything. If there are reliable sources on Furry fandom criticism that are notable then their inclusion is appropriate. If there is not then their inclusion is not appropriate. Articles should be a complete, accurate and factual overview of a subject, not a place to compare pros and cons or advertise people viewpoints on those subjects. NeoFreak 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and I am not proposing using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" to "advertise" anything, only suggesting this article be held to the same standards other existing criticism sections are. The fact that furry fandom has been misrepresented by the media in the past is documented and verifiable according to Wikipedia standards, and is not just opinion. Be that as it may, I believe such a section would not be appropriate as the article should focus on what furry fandom is instead of what it isn't. —Xydexx 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is when the "reliable sources" don't have the same objective. CSI, Vanity Fair and the like are known for being interested in entertaining consumers, not for presenting an accurate representation of the topics they cover. In fact, they seem to have taken the same tack as ED does, since fans having wild sex orgies is much more entertaining than fans laughing at puppet shows and dancing the night away at discos. Furry convention#In the media has a few examples of what happens when reporters don't already have a story in mind before they start their research. If CBC and the Financial Times aren't reliable, I'm not sure what else counts. GreenReaper 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the fact that the majority of people on the largest vore site on the web are furries:

http://aryion.com/modules.php?name=characterdatabase

Then there is macrophilia, which has it's own section dedicated to furries on the Wikipedia page, and the first external link on there focuses on dino macrophilia.

A significant percentage of AB/DLs are babyfurs/diaperfurs, but how large the number is compared to the furry fandom in general is anyone's guess, though.

Zoophila probably doesn't have a large presence in the furry fandom, although the ones who practice it and are furries are more open about it.

Watersports...only a channel for it on Furnet, that's about it.

Of course, even if these were all true, shouldn't they be in the Yiff article? 69.160.28.78 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If the majority of people on a vore site are furries, that doesn't mean it can be used as a backwards-compatible (guilt by association) argument to say most furries are into vore. Likewise for most fetishes you mention. It's considered original research. There are groups of furries who are Christians, go geocaching, own Scions, and so forth. Just like folks who aren't furries. In other words, these things are not notable or relevant.

You could say the fandom has a high percentage of people who wear glasses, too, but what does it have to do with anthropomorphic animals? This is an article about furry fandom, not the infinite ancillary things that individual furry fans do. —Xydexx 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Xydexx, I would disagree. This article doesn't just cover anthrpomorphic animas, it convers a demographic (furry fandom). Therefore info about the members of that demographic is of the utmost importance. Then again maybe that is the biggest handicap of this article. It is covering not just anthromorphic animals, the portrayal of anthropomorphic animals in media but the fan base demogrpahic. Might a splitting of these topics be in order? Possibly an "in art" article and a "demographical" article? NeoFreak 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There used to be an article at Furry that more or less covered the "in art" angle, leaving this article to cover the demographics, but around the middle of 2005 it was merged into here for reasons I never really understood. Talk:Furry/Archive 2 is filled with acrimonious arguing over the subject. I think re-splitting the subjects would be a good idea, myself, but it could be a major project if that old argument gets resurrected in the process. Perhaps a way to do an end run around the strife might be to create Furry (furry fandom) or some other such "specialized" article instead, leaving Furry as a disambig? Bryan 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an off the top of my head type thought, I hadn't really put alot into it. I'll look over the old debte, thanks for the info and link. NeoFreak 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

After a very quick glance alot of the arguemts seems to come from the term furry. Might some redirects and a more "general interest" tpye phrase be used? Maybe "anthropomorphy in art" and a link in the body of the article to fandom? NeoFreak 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just keeping the furry fandom article about furry fandom instead of catering to the whims of people who want to add misinformation to it? I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

I mean, I suppose we could turn this into a WikiProject like I see the Anime folks have been working on, but that doesn't really solve the underlying problems of folks trying to add misinformation. Given the apparent trend of deleting furry-related articles from Wikipedia (which seem motived more by editor's biases than any actual violations of policy (see Midwest FurFest) it's a bit frustrating.) —Xydexx 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That could be a reason to split stuff not directly related to the fandom into its own article. I really don't see how that would "cater to the whims of people who want to add misinformation about it", it's simply a matter of focus. Bryan 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and as I mentioned, articles for the various fetishes already exist. —Xydexx 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian— In a nutshell: This article has been the target of chronic vandalism by people who think it's "funny" to add misinformation because they know we'll react to it. There was an (IMHO) extremely ill-advised merge by an editor and her group of friends back in 2005. I was busy RL during that time working on deadlines for Anthrocon, so I wasn't able to add much opposition to that discussion. A similar ill-advised merge of Furry Lifestyler with Furry Fandom occured relatively recently, even though these are considered two seperate topics due to their historically large flamewar potential.

I don't think I can stress enough how often people attempt to add misinformation to this article because they think doing so is hilarious. I wish that other editors would take this a little more seriously, because it's frustrating for those of us who do want to see this article improve. —Xydexx 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Something interesting I found today - User:Raul654/Raul's laws, specifically rule 8. And yet I see nothing about furries being Wikipedia editors in the article, although I'm sure you could get plenty of people who agree that it is the case. GreenReaper 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. Rule 5 seems particularly relevant to some of the recent discussions here. --Mwalimu59 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But unlike glasses and geocaching, the fetishes furries may or may not have are notable. I will try to come up with research and a small paragraph concerning it on the Yiff article, but not right now. I don't even think it needs to say that it's a large number, just that people have intergrated their fetishes with the furry fandom.

Again, this is outside the scope of the article. It doesn't matter if furries have fetishes or not, they aren't notable because—like wearing glasses and geocaching—they aren't what furry fandom is about, they aren't exclusive to furry fandom, and they do not represent most furry fans. Wikipedia is not a platform to create guilt by association arguments as per the prohibition on original research.

According to that, the part about furry spirituality should be reomved because it's not what the fandom is about (it's called a fandom for a reason), is not exclusive to the fandom (totem animals), and does not represent most furry fans. But no problem, i'll step aside and let other people settle the disputes over this article. My head is spinning reading half the stuff on this page. 69.160.28.78 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, articles already exist for specific fetishes; there is no need to include them here. Attempting to incorporate misinformation into the article is vandalism.—Xydexx 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S - I don't think Rule 13 can apply on here. The editors are too polarized. 69.160.28.78 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Raul's Laws are not Wikipedia policy anyway, so it doesn't really matter. —Xydexx 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

The following comment is found under the "convention" section:

ROFL, Look at all those furfags waiting in line to fuck each other. MANTRAIN

This is clearly not appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apieterse (talk • contribs) .

I'm not seeing that . . . do you mean in this article, or another one? GreenReaper 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope Clarification

Furry fandom is about artwork, stories, and related products (comics, movies, costumes, et al.) which feature anthropomorphic animals. This distinction should be maintained in this article in order to discourage vandalism and avoid scope creep. —Xydexx 06:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The tricky thing here is that community activities often involve artwork, stories and costumes, and many consider them to be either a key part of the fandom itself, or at least close enough to put in the article. Furry lifestyler was merged in here because it had insufficient separate sources, even though it has very little to do with such material things. Certainly few news reports cover furry fandom materials in isolation to the community around the furry fandom. Having said that, though, you're welcome to try making a separate furry community article if you wish. It seems to have worked out for furry convention. GreenReaper 07:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a separate article for The Furry Genre, and then having the Furry Fandom article exclusively about the activities of the fans, much in the same way we have separate articles for anime and otaku? You can use the Ursa Major criteria to define the genre. You can use convention news reports to determine typical fan activities. I think this separation could have positive results. Perri Rhoades 07:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing. By "community activities" do you mean fanac such as editing zines, writing fanfic, attending cons and fursuiting? I'm not sure I see a reason for a seperate article in that regard, i.e., one that says "furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animal art, etc." and another that says "furry fans draw anthropomorphic animals, etc." It seems a little redundant. —Xydexx 07:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then - I think you should make clearer what it is that you are trying to exclude by your definition, since that appears to be the objective. For example, would you exclude the quite widely accepted view that the sexual orientation of furry fans appears to be divergent from the general population, on the basis that this really has very little to do with products that feature anthropomorphic animals? If so, and assuming that such information is of interest to those reading about the community (I submit that it is), where would such a thing be mentioned? GreenReaper 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would depend on whether we're writing an article about sexual orientation or an article about a fandom that focuses on anthropomorphic animals. I would hope we're doing the latter. The whole reason people keep attempting to incorporate countless bits of unrelated information (regarding countless fetishes, zoophilia, Asperger's Syndrome, creeping CYDcruft, and so on) is by using the excuse that "some furry fans do this, therefore it has to do with furry fandom" rather than "this has to do with anthropomorphic animals, therefore it has to do with furry fandom." If we're going to include information in this article which has little to do with anthropomorphic animals and doesn't belong here, I could say this article needs a section on chocolate milk because I'm a furry fan and I like chocolate milk. Actually, who doesn't like chocolate milk? It should be in every article. Chocolate milk for everyone!

Really, I don't understand what is so difficult about making this an article about furry fandom. —Xydexx 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. :-) I assert that the sexual orientation of members of the furry fandom's community is a distinctive characteristic that has and continues to have effects upon it, and upon the materials that you describe as core to it. I think that it is related. Where would such a thing be mentioned? If not in this article, then in what article? I seriously doubt there has been no effect, even in the restricted scope of artwork, if only because about half of furry erotica (which appears to make around 1/3 of sales at conventions) is other than heterosexual - it has clearly had an effect on these furry fandom works.

To put this in further context - while at this year's Midwest FurFest, I was invited to a party which happened to include many convention staff and notable figures within the fandom. There was one heterosexual couple in the room, and it was noted to them that they were "in the minority". This reflects a pattern I have seen throughout the fandom, and one that is not reflected in the general population. Why this is, and what impact has it had on furry fandom and its community, would appear to me to be valid topics for this article to cover.

I just singled that out as the most obvious factor, but there are plenty more - for example, the high proportion of geeks in the fandom (even for fandom), perhaps due to its spread over the Internet. Is that in this article, as it relates to the furry community, or out, if you take the view that it has no particular relationship to the artwork or stories (but first consider such things as the fact that the first net-distributed comic was furry). If it is out (as Perri contends), where is the article in which it should be noted instead? GreenReaper 09:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You can assert all you like, I don't have to agree. Also, are you proposing to use this article for original research based on your observations at Midwest FurFest? -=)

My focus is on trying to prevent misinformation being incorporated into the article, and at this point limiting the scope of the article is currently the only option which would solve this problem. If you can elaborate how your proposal would not open the door to the recreational harassment community using it as an excuse to add every spurious claim under the sun to this article, I'll be happy to hear it. —Xydexx 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, GR, the second strip in the history of comics was furry. That being the case, the first comic on the net being furry is hardly surprising. What’s surprising is your reluctance to acknowledge a connection between the two strips.

Also, what reliable statistics do you have for this assertion that the fandom is significantly dominated by gays and geeks? What evidence do you have that the majority of the fandom didn’t leave the community when the gays and lifestylers took over? How do you know there aren’t untold thousands of furry fans out there of all ages and descriptions enjoying the fandom privately, while sensibly keeping their distance from all the controversy and anxiety that typifies life in The Furry Community? And if so, how would you ever go about surveying them if they refused to go to gay dominated cons or join message boards where fans can hardly get a word in over the lifestylers?

You want to know why gays dominate conventions? Start listening to me when I tell you all this talk of gay dominated parties scares the crap out of me. You aren't selling these gatherings to furry fans. You're selling them to lifestylers and chasing the rest of us away. Then, after making sure we're not there, you come up with this bull that the fandom is only about what you see happening at cons.

Where is the article where your talk of sexuality in the fandom belongs? Right here. It’s Xydexx who needs another article. An article to define the genre.

Why can’t you guys look at all the other fandoms and see that they have already demonstrated the answers to your problem? There are separate articles for anime and otaku, separate articles for Star Trek and Trekkies. Why can’t you see that we are talking about the only fandom without an article that defines its genre, and another article that dwells on the antics of the relative fandom? Why am I the only one who dares to acknowledge that there’s something wrong with this picture? Perri Rhoades 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's exactly what I'm saying, to both of you - if you want to limit the scope, you need to at the same time make another article for such things, and move the content that you do not consider part of fandom but only part of the community there. Otherwise they will keep being put in here, as it is the most appropriate page for them. GreenReaper 04:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fandom and the community are synonymous. It is theoretically a community of fans that are drawn together by a certain object of adoration. You seem to be most interested in elaborating on the community/fandom. Xydexx seems interested in the object of adoration. I'm saying the object of adoration Xydexx is alluding to is The Furry Genre. Therefore, Xydexx should be thinking about a genre article, rather than a community article. I think you both have the right idea here. Just a screwed perspective that everything has to somehow fall under the flag of the fandom/community. I'm saying you've missed the key element that will keep the additional article from being redundant.

The problem is that there is a need to acknowledge that there is something more going on here than a fandom that exists for its own sake. A genre article would be just what Xydexx is suggesting, something focused exclusively on anthropomorphic art, crafts and literature. This would give the fandom a stabilizing factor it has never had before. Something that shows what the core interest of the fandom is in a way that everyone can understand.

This would leave you free to alter the nature of the fandom article to something that exclusively focuses on fans, their activities, their interests, their controversies, anything at all to do with the fandom. Then it wouldn't matter so much how controversial or critical the fandom article became, because the genre article would maintain the integrity of the art form, reducing the antics of the fans to a mere novelty, just as it is with otaku and trekkies, who are also considered to be controversial in many respects.

Try to give the idea some serious thought. This simple idea could solve so many problems. Perri Rhoades 10:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about it. The trouble with separating art and culture exclusively from those that make it is that any discussion of art is meaningless without context. Check out history of erotic depictions, a recently featured article. It is chock-full of links to the people and communities that created it, and explanations of why they did it, and what the reaction was. Encyclopedias (as opposed to dictionaries like Wiktionary, which is where definitions should be) are all about why things are, which necessarily includes who made them and what the results were. I think the ultimate solution is to go up a step and consider the "furry genre" as just a part of the larger genre of anthropomorphics.

We have managed to separate out certain elements of furry fandom, like conventions, fursuits and, yes, yiff (there's gotta be a better title for that article . . .) but there's only so much you can take out of this article. There has to be something that ties it together. I think that, for furry, what does that is actually the idea of characters that have a mix of human and animal traits, not the products. Furry art is the expression of these characters in visual form. Fursuits are intended to duplicate their form in real life. Furry stories convey the idea of furry characters with the written word. Furry roleplaying involves the creation and acting of these characters. Etc. Indeed, the main difference from therianthropy is that furries tend to view as fictional characters as opposed to assigning a spiritual context to them - the art is much the same, which suggests it's not something that should be labeled "furry".

You are right that the art genre that is used by furry fandom has been around for a long time. But furry fandom, particularly the part that links people's identity with these characters, seems like it is something apart from that. People are fans of the characters, not just the art depicting them. People are therefore likely to disagree about exactly what a "furry genre" is in terms of boundaries. The most practical definition I've heard is "what furry fans like". I would caution against trying to use Wikipedia to define such an area. It is not a tool to establish clear definitions where there are none.

Something like anthropmorphism in art and literature might do a lot better, because it seems to have a clearer meaning, established over a longer period of time. It is also a larger topic which probably has had far more written about it which you could reference. The article would just view furry material as one recent expression of it, leading on from from the popular funny animal genre. I therefore suggest expanding anthropomorphism, which already has a section on the literature, with the idea of splitting off from that article in the future. Alternatively, you could expand funny animal (it needs it), but that term is somewhat restricted to cartoons. GreenReaper 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs, here. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals, regardless of whether that is the idea of them, products featuring them, people dressing up as them, and so on. I do not think an open-ended and vague "what furry fans like" definition is practical or correct—in fact I think it's extermely unwise. As I said, just because I like chocolate milk doesn't mean it's part of furry fandom. —Xydexx 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If enough furry fans did like it, and that like was distinct from the general population, it would become a characteristic of furry fandom, and worthy of mention - both by referenced sources, and therefore here. Is Nutella, perhaps the closest thing to chocolate milk with any relevance, so worthy? Probably not. DDR? Closer, as it has scheduled times at conventions, but that's probably more to do with the age of attendees. It does belong in furry convention. Filk? Again, it's there, but not really distinct enough from other fandoms. Scritches and furpiles? They're probably in somewhere, as you don't get them in other fandoms. Charity? Tough one - furry cons raise significant amounts, but I'm not qualified to say whether or not other conventions do as well. I gave it a mention because it does have some time spent on it. The Internet? Tough again - there are areas, like Second Life, and webcomics, where anthropomorphic characters are a quite visible proportion of the population. Fursuits? Already have been, even though they existed prior to the fandom.

An encyclopedia is intended to capture both the topic concerned and its relations to other topics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and should not just be about the definition of words. If you want that, here it is. If you want a more "pure" article that is solely about the "core" topics of the fandom - well, you're not going to achieve that entirely, but you can split some of the relations out to separate articles and mention only a summary here, as has already been done.

The sociology of furry fandom and its likes, dislikes and actions is relevant to the topic, and is likely to be one of the things people are more interested in 100 years down the line, either when it's gone or after genetically engineered furry overlords have taken over the planet. Part of what makes history interesting is learning how other people in other times felt and acted, and while an encyclopedia isn't a history book, the topics within it should be enough that you could lay out a basic framework for one. "Why did the furry fandom adopt a hostile stance towards the media in the first half of the '00s?" is a perfectly valid question that should be answerable from a good set of encyclopedia articles on the topic, even though that really has very little to do with the artwork, stories, or related products. GreenReaper 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what in your proposal prevents the recreational harassment community from using this as an excuse to add every spurious claim under the sun to this article? —Xydexx 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Your tools for that should be the core Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR, not limitation of scope. They seem to have worked reasonably well so far, as shown by the recent ban of the person who kept adding GodHatesFurries in violation of the three-revert rule. GreenReaper 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fursuits

I feel that this article and the Fursuit article would best be served by merging Fursuit in the Fan Creations subsection of this article. I don't quite think that Fursuits need their own article (esp with such an ambiguous title covering such a specific focus) and this article would benefit quite a bit from its inclusion here. No doubt some of the Fursuit article would need to be trimmed down to the sourced basics, the down and dirty version with links in other words. Thoughts? NeoFreak 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that our coverage of the topic could certainly be greatly improved, but I don't think the way to do that is to merge it into here. I've been busy with various things over the last few weeks so I couldn't do a follow-on to my work on furry convention, but the holidays are coming up. Perhaps it's time to review it and write a proper article. There are obvious things it misses out, such as the presence of a book on the topic, and I know there's more media coverage than that, because the media loves to talk about fursuits. GreenReaper 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the book, good find. I was also thinking of merging some other articles into the conventions article but that's another conversation. I guess one of my big issues is the title of the article, it's very broad, even the book seems to be geared toward Mascot suits in general. Maybe a merge with Mascot? Fursuit only covers the Furry cosplay aspect of the actual fursuit. Maybe some changes to the article first would be more appropriate as you've suggeested. NeoFreak 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeTBG9PU5Js&NR I thought you should see this video. It seems to be from a TV news source, and it kind of blows the argument that fursuits and mascot outfits are not the same thing out of the water. Perri Rhoades 05:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are teh same thing. I'm saying that they are related. Granted, not all "mascot suits" are fursuits but they share the same design principles. Two diffrent concepts of the same design idea if you will. NeoFreak 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a difference in concept. Whether you are a ball team mascot, a character at a theme park, an advertising gimmick outside a store, a children's hospital entertainer, a guy in a Ryo-okki suit at an anime con, or someone contributing to the entertainment at a furry con, there is no difference in concept to be seen.

There is no way The Furry Community can lay claim to any special ownership of this type of entertainment. It's the same thing as saying I draw a furry comic. You draw a funny animal comic. They look exactly alike, same art form, same idea, but for some reason the community wants to lay some kind of ownership on something that they do which is in no way unique to them. And I'm tired of people saying this is just because it is. This is Wikipedia. I want to see the details of how these are two different concepts before you start shuffling articles around.

I’m also tired of everything under the sun being nominated for merger with the Furry Fandom article. What use is an encyclopedia where every entry you look up for more specific info directs you right back to the same article? Plus, I don’t think people looking for info on fursuits for reasons entirely unrelated to the fandom would appreciate having to look for info on fursuits in the middle of an article about some strange fandom they never heard of.

I never thought I’d have to say this, but there are other things in the world besides furry fandom. Everything in the world is not so related to it that it belongs in the Furry Fandom article. I reiterate what Xydexx said earlier. The Furry Fandom article should be about furry fandom. Stuff like fursuit entertaining, lifestyles, etc. etc. are entirely different phenomena that deserve their own articles for full encyclopedic exploration. Perri Rhoades 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding where this hostile tone is coming from. One, I'm not a member of the "furry fandom" and Two, even if I was I would appreciate if you assumed good faith. You might be interested to know that I am not suggesting merging the entire concept into the furry fandom article, something you'd come to see if you reviewed some of the background conversations or my edit history. There is already a Mascot article, I'm suggesting moving the "fursuits" in the realm of the "furry fandom" into this article. My point was is that the "furry fursuit" plays a role in furry role-play, and in the furry lifestyle. The Mascot suit plays a role in advertising and entertainment. I was suggesting moving the Fursuit article here because I believe, as of right now, that both articles would be better served together and because the name "fursuit" is too ambiguous for such a specific application of the "mascot, fursuit, type thing". Clear things up? NeoFreak 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, how does it matter what you're wearing while you're role playing online? I've never heard anyone say "I role play in a fursuit, let alone seen it written anywhere. And I'm not even sure about this business of fursuits playing a part in lifestyle. Seems to me fursuits play a part in a hobby. How they could be practically used in a lifestyle needs some explanation. What source are you using for this information?

Yes, mascots are used for advertising and entertainment. The video I linked states that furries use their suits for advertising and entertainment. It says the suits are sometimes made by the same people who create mascot costumes. Suppose I own a store and I have a friend in the fandom with a fursuit that I ask to make his character my store mascot. Does he have to get a second costume? Is he suddenly no longer a furry? Where then does it make sense that a furry mascot outfit and a fursuit are not the same thing?

Why move fursuits into the furry fandom article? That’s the same as suggesting that fursuits are the exclusive domain of furry fandom, which I’m sure will come as a shock to the guy in the Pluto fursuit at Disneyland. And how are the fursuitted characters seen at furry cons not justly defined as the mascots of the fandom?

I think the more appropriate thing is a link in the furry fandom article to the fursuit article. As in you read, "Furry fans are noted for creating fursuits." You wonder what a fursuit is and you just click the word for a full article on fursuits. You read in that article, "Fursuits are used to portray mascot characters." You wonder what a mascot is and you click the word for a full article on mascots. This is how Wikipedia makes itself a useful source of quickly accessible and complete information. This is not possible with everyone trying to smash innumerable pages together. It limits the information that can be given on each specific term, while simultaneously confusing the information that is relative to the actual topic of the page.

Anyway, all I’m saying is that, before I just let you get away with making fursuits something specific to furry fandom, someone ought to at least demand verification to justify this. So, where’s the information that verifies a person looking to make a fursuit for Mardi Gras should have to wade through all the stuff in the furry fandom article to find out something on fursuits? Where’s the verification that the companies that make fursuits that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars got into that business because of furry fandom? Where’s the justification that something which can cost thousands of dollars is so ambiguous it doesn’t deserve its own article? Perri Rhoades 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What? have you read any of these articles? Are we talking about the same things here or have I just fallen down the rabbit hole and entered the Twilight Zone? The fursuits article is only about the furry fandom aspect, one of the issues I take with it. Have you read my last post? Nevermind. NeoFreak 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at them. The Fursuit article is all wrong. It does exactly what I've been saying. It gives ownership of fursuits to the furry sub-culture. That is just wrong and needs to be changed. But the solution to fixing it is not merging it with the Furry Fandom article. That just attempts to validate what's wrong with it. The Mascot article is also flawed. Didn't see anything about anime type mascots there. It would seem all the articles involved are seriously inaccurate and misleading. But that's par for the course for Wikipedia. Perri Rhoades 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused. While the definition of "Fursuit" is certainly not set in stone, the association with the furry fandom is one of the things that surely belong in that definition. At least I think so. What's the difference between a fursuit and a mascot, if not the association with the fandom? Sure, it's not always easy to differ between the two, but there are still clear cases, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between a fursuit and a mascot is that a fursuit is the name of a type of costume, the coining of the term lacking sufficient documentation to attribute it to furry fandom. To attribute it to furry fandom you must show that the term was not in use long before the existence of the furry sub-culture, and I seem to recall references to the term going back at least as far as the 1940's.

A mascot, rather than being a type of costume, is a type of character, usually a cartoon character. A fursuit is only one of many artistic methods that may be used to represent a mascot character.

It's also interesting to note the use of the term mascot in anime. Almost every anime title has a furry mascot. And when those mascots are represented in cosplay, the most common method is the fursuit. Fursuits are also in use at theme parks, in carnivals, parades and many other events that have nothing to do with the furry subculture. Thus there is no basis for the idea that fursuits are something unique to furry fandom, rather than being something common and unique to itself that the fandom simply makes use of, as many others make use of it.

My point is simply that the current fursuit article is in error to be ascribing the existence of a common term and costume type to the furry subculture, or any subculture at all. It would thus only compound that error to merge the two articles. What we have here are three terms for three distinctly different concepts that are in no way uniquely connected with each other. The proper course of action would thus be a properly researched article for each.

Of course, with Wikipedia, you can't do your own research. And it may be difficult to find reference material that can be used, which may make the individual articles difficult to right. But that in no way justifies the merging of articles on the basis of uninformed opinions. You still need reference material to justify using Wikipedia to assert that two things are directly related to each other. And I've seen no evidence presented to the effect that fursuit is a term coined by or unique to the furry subculture.

What you need to find is a reference article based on the manufacturers of fursuits who make them for general purposes, not just for the subculture. That should tell you if they refer to them as fursuits or something else. Any objections I have are solely to the suggestion of this merger without such references being cited. Perri Rhoades 07:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the webpages of some manufacturers of animal costumes[3][4][5] and they invariably refer to them as "mascot costumes" or "mascot suits". As far as I can tell all the Google results for "fursuit" link to fandom related pages. This all suggests what everyone already suspected, that "fursuit" is a fandom-originated term. Alamagoosa 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In that event, being as I see the very same suits that appeared in the furry news coverage for sale as mascot outfits, it seems fursuit is just another word for mascot suit. Therefore, the thing to do is delete the fursuit article, and have fursuit redirect to the mascot article. Perri Rhoades 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or being mildly sarcastic, but never mind. I'm sure you can picture the ructions if anyone was fool enough to make a redirect like that. And anyway, it would be more sensible to redirect it to costuming. Though again, this would merely serve to generate pointless argumentation. Alamagoosa 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm A furry!

I'm a member of the furry fandom, But they'res one thing I dislike about this article... Not all furrys will do fursuiting and all that, I am what I call a more "Sane" Type of furre, So I dont do fursuiting. I do however belive in animal spirits, Like some furry art, And stuff like that. Wolfpawz 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is it implied that all furries do fursuiting? (or that fursuiters are insane,, for that matter :-) GreenReaper 16:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)