Talk:Furry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

The sexual aspect

Why does this page totally avoid the sexual aspect?

I noticed that myself. If you feel you know enough about Furry culture to write something reasonable about it, you're certainly welcome to ^_^; I'm afraid for myself that I don't know much about it. -- Creidieki 21:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can try to write up something some time, but the problem really is that furrydom is so diverse it's hard at best to come up with a single statement that everybody can agree on. It's particularly true as far as sexuality goes, too; it's definitely a hot topic, with some focussing on it entirely and others claiming it has no place in furrydom at all and should be purged. -- Schnee 22:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that the first commenter had made a few notes in the article, and I decided it would be good to expand to its own paragraph. I was mostly writing from discussion with friends and from your (Schnee's) comments; feel free to edit/replace mercilessly. The article as a whole is fairly unstructured at the moment. I'm sure there's enough material that an entire page about Furry Sexuality could be written, but I'm not the one who could write it. I ended up reverting the notes from the first commenter, which had been added to the introductory paragraph, because I didn't feel they were NPOV, and I thought my paragraph explained the issue; but I don't think a mention in the intro paragraph would be inappropriate. -- Creidieki 01:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't get why this isn't "neutral". It seems pretty well balanced to me. Crowe 18:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because if there is a more general category of "Furries" that doesn't involve sex, then this article must lay that down as the foundation, otherwise this article just becomes a discussion of something out of the ordinary (which on it's own is an emphasis that it must be perverted). Discussions of something out of the ordinary without laying down the foundation will quickly turn into speculation and tripe, and will just be more fodder for trolls, rather than a level-headed reference. -- Caidence 19:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this page counting the rabbits from Watership Down in the category, then? Because they aren't anthropomorphic at all, just personified, which applies to an absolutely huge body of characters in folklore and literature I am guessing most people wouldn't include.

Well, I disagree about them being anthropomorphic; they aren't physically different from normal rabbits, but they do talk to each other and exhibit a level of intelligence that is more humanlike than animallike. I guess they could be considered a border case, though. There's no hard and fast way of categorizing stuff "furry" and "non-furry", as with most purely culture-generated divisions.

My inclination is to not mention Watership Down -- if it is a questionable or debatable example, why not swap it for a better one? Our goal is not comprehensivity, is it? -- Cayzle

I disagree with that; my experience is that the vast majority of furry fans would consider Watership Down one of the touchstones of furry literature. If WD is questionable, then so is almost everything else. Loganberry 13:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what you're calling "personified" *is* one of the meanings of the term "anthropomorphic" as it applies to animals. It's not confined to so-called "morphs"-- the upright kind of animal character.

The rabbits in Watership Down are talking animals, which means they do qualify as an example of mainstream furry characters. —Xydexx

TMNT et all

Re: the recent changes by 67.170.46.54

The teenage mutant ninja turtles, and other creations much like them ARE furries, despite not having actual "fur". The term "furry" doen't have anyhting to do with whether or not the creation has fur, rather that they are a hybrid of the human species with an animal species. TMNT, and things like them, are often known as scalies (in the case of repties, etc).... but they still fall under the unbrella category of "furs"

I never really thought of using TMNT as an example of a fur, but you're right. The show is mainstream (or perhaps was) and many people are familiar with it. I'll be sure whenever asked to give this as an example to steer away from the public image of furries consisting only of fursuiters that try to have sex while fursuiting. In general, admitting to be a furry to non-furs is a form of social suicide since people shoot your foot--They don't give you a chance to correct their ideas of the culture and its not shooting your own foot if its their preconceptions that's off.--Mylon 23:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TMNT originated directly out of the early furry fandom. A friend has a "Cutey Bunny" comic (a cornerstone of the early fandom) from either 1980 or 81, and in the news and letters section is a letter from the creators of TMNT: (quoting from memory, may be a bit off)

"Hey, we just finished inking the first issue of something we think is going to really big: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [...]"

Understatement of the decade? I really ought to get it scanned...

(Also note the reoccuring crossovers between Usagi Yojimbo and TMNT.)

Furry Sexuality

Why should it talk about sexual aspects? A lot of individuals and groups mentioned in Wikipedia have sex now and then, and we get along very well without a discussion of those details .... thank you. - unci

Contrary to what some people like to think (or like), there *is* a sexual side to furrydom, and an article on it can't be NPOV without mentioning it. -- Schnee 20:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I added the paragraph about sexuality in response to an anonymous user (User:69.111.72.245), who had added notes about Furry sexuality on July 28, 2004. In that edit, the remarks were rather crudely placed in the introduction paragraph, stating that furriness was "often sexual" and referring to furriness as a "sexual fetish". I reverted those changes, and added something I felt was more neutral, and more appropriately placed.
From what I've seen, criticism of furry subculture often focuses on the sexual aspects, and I think that an accurate statement on that respect is a good thing to have. I'm very open to suggestions about where to put the material in the article, how to phrase the material, and what else we want to say. I really think, though, that to be accurate, complete and NPOV, the article needs to acknowledge the criticism but state clearly that not all furries are involved in it. -- Creidieki 08:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with unci and don't see a need to focus on sexuality; lots of furry fans are into geocaching and urban exploration, too, but that doesn't mean they need their own sections as well. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals; an accurate article should focus on that. —Xydexx
One somewhat surprising omissions from this article (though I'm not sure how to rectify them, so haven't edited): I think the word yiff needs to be mentioned in the Sexuality section, since it's used so widely within furry. (The Yiff page itself says it's a candidate for Wiktionary; personally I think it's clearly an encyclopaedic topic, and could easily be significantly expanded. Just not by me. =:P ) Loganberry 13:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

pressedfur

Pressed Fur (pressedfur.coolfreepages.com)

I'm siding with ContiE on this... concidering the last updated date, as well as the fact that with XP's SP2 IE blocks all content from coolfreepages.com due to "potential security risks and harmful content", this is not a useful resource, nor should it be included with the article. If you really have a problem with this Fibonacci, we could always put it to a vote to prevent an edit war. Arcuras 17:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't block the page to me. --Fibonacci 00:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then it is highly likely that you told IE to mind it's own business and allow you to access it anyway. =) Arcuras 00:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't. I couldn't have, because I'm too ignorant to know how. --Fibonacci 02:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
its
What? --Fibonacci 20:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added Sections

It just beat me that this page was too long to be completely section-less. I changed a few terms too... Added the link to fursona and generally grouped the ideas into the proposed subjects. I'm my first non-minor edit on a non-stub article, so please bear with me here. -- Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 20:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never known 'spooge' to be related to the furry community. Just a normal slang term for semen.

NPOV

Question: Is it possible that we could find a neutral link (Not by a furry and not by a furry-hater) to insert instead of what we've got now? Suntiger 19:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the "furry critic" link section you removed. These links are hard to find, there's alot of almost fanatic anti-furry stuff on the web. Personally I'm fine with Nothingkat's website and shii's essay. While quite harsh sometimes, they both look at things from their own perspective, not the "we have to hate all furries" perspective. After looking at crushyiffdestroy.com again I don't have a problem with seeing that link gone tho. --Conti|✉ 20:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
The only potentially neutral look at "Furry" that I know of was done on LiveJournal, by a guy named Brad Hicks (who I believe is a wikipedian)... but I'm not sure a livejournal entry is something typically seen in a see-also list. In any case, you can read it here. Arcuras 23:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
I personally think Wikipedia is the only truly neutral article on furries on the Internet. I added the link to Crush, Yiff, Destroy! because it does attempt to be a factual resource, albeit a very POV one; however, the rest of the sites are themselves POV from the other direction. I think that adding CYD makes the article more NPOV?right now, we have four pro-furry sites and one critical site. At the very least, I think that shii's essay should be re-added. Nightwatch 03:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to say this article is horribly POV. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to re-write it accurately, although I believe it should be marked as having a neutrality dispute MrHate 11:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Crush Yiff Destroy is a website notorious for spreading misinformation and calumny about furry fandom. Using them as a resource is dubious at best. —Xydexx
Could you elaborate that a bit? What exactly is POV on the article, and why? --Conti|✉ 19:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, like I said, I don't know much about the topic, which is why I came to look at the article, to answer some of my questions regarding the sexuality and fetish side of "Furry". I at first thought the article was written about a different kind of being "Furry" until I noticed the paragraph near the bottom of the page. Like I said, I don't know anything about the topic, but I do know that the sexuality and fetish side of the topic needs to be clearer, and mentioned in the opening statement as the current opening statement is very misleading. I dare say the majority of people coming to read the article are really only interested in reading about the fetish. Also, the article reads like it was obviously written by someone who is "a furry" and not a third party, which is how an article should be written. I understand that there is more to it than just the sex, and perhaps this is a common public view that you would like to combat, but neutrality is an important part of a Wikipedia article. Let me know what you think :) MrHate 02:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think your statements that the article's content and organization aren't very related to mainstream perceptions and knowledge are very reasonable. I had mentioned in a previous talk post that I thought a statement about sexuality in the introduction would be reasonable. I tried adding a few sentences to the introduction; does my addition strike people as reasonable? I also readded a few external links, with what I think is very neutral descriptions. I think that a section of the article which focused on mainstream criticisms of furry subculture, and on the interactions of furries with the rest of the internet and the media, would be reasonable.
You've also mentioned that the article seemed to be written by people who were involved in the Furry fandom. I think that part of the problem with that is the organization. Currently, material seems to be split fairly haphazardly between Furry, Furry fandom, and Yiff (which I'm thinking should actually be titled something like "Furry sexuality"). This article seems to have started as a description of "an anthropomorphic character", and ended up with a much broader range of information. I'd encourage people who have some time to take a look at reorganizing the various Furry-related articles. -- Creidieki 03:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First of all - as you probably already have noticed - I am a furry and therefore of course a bit biased on this topic. But, the thing I read from your comment is that you would like to read more about the "fetish part" of the fandom, and I can clearly see where you got that information about furry as a fetish. It might be true that there could be a bit more written about that part, but furry simply isn't the crazy perverted fetish world the media/somethingawful.com tries to convince you of. Sure there are many fetish people in the fandom, but that has nothing to do itself with the topic of "furry". I agree with you tho that the article could use more help from neutral outside sources, but these are usually not easy to find, sadly. --Conti|✉ 03:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

--User:Calbeck The problem with relying on a third-party dissertation concerning furfandom is that most of what comprises furfandom remains below the radar screen, particularly regarding its history. Any third-party individual writing about furry history, ConFurence, or the origin of the sexual schism in the fandom is going to necessarily be reliant on data which originates with furries in any event. And because there has never been anything like an official "furry historian" who can be counted upon to collate and ensure the neutrality of data, there is virtually no source material which can universally be agreed upon as NPOV. Any third-party dissertation will perforce be seeing the fandom through two or more sets of glasses, rather than one.

I have put myself forward as the source on these topics because I am in fact a direct witness to much of the goings-on, and have long been friends or otherwise associated with many of furfandom's prime movers, including several of those who were part of the original "Gang of Thirty" that the fandom coalesced around in the first place. I have watched the fandom evolve for over twelve years, and have both read and contributed to its early and mid-life "historical documents" in the form of key APAs such as Rowrbrazzle, Gallery and Yarf!. All three of these were typified by the tendency of their contributors to talk about furfandom's political scene and events, both that they were witness to and which they heard about via secondary or tertiary sources.

It has been my aim to distill this raw data down to reliable facts. I have, on more than one occasion, served as a rumorbuster, peacemaker and/or investigator depending on the need of the situation. My standing motto is a direct swipe from Ciaphus, a secondary character in Vicky Wyman's "Xanadu: 2000" --- "I'm more a hostage to truth". In fannish politics, people may say any thing for any reason, but the truth of the affair remains no matter what obfuscation is laid to hide it.

NPOV, again

I've added SectNPOV tags to some of the parts recently contributed by 68.99.136.149. While it seems there is some truth in these parts of the article, it seems rather exxagerating and - since this came from an anonymous user - it may be impossible to ask the original author to provide some additional facts to prove this. I think these sections should be reworked.

--Doco

As to the "Sex, Lies and the Internet" section, I don't know why thats under dispute. Its fairly well known FurryMUCK lore. I'm pretty sure someone such as Revar will confirm it.

As to the sections concerning Merlino and ConFurence, there's this article: http://www.crushyiffdestroy.com/show-article.php?file=merlino and in particular, this infamous usenet post: http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl3726341868d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=32FCD678.39D9%40primenet.com&rnum=1


--User:Changa

Most all of the Mark Merlino article on Crush Yiff Destroy is both bullshit and slander. I can't imagine how it could even be cited as a real source of information.

One Example of bad reporting:

"Merlino would later use it as some sort of springboard to infamy - offering, at one point, free admission to his furry conventions to anyone who held an account on the game."

Mark was not stupid enough to give out free admission to CF to furrymuckers. The CF in question did have a "Virtually" tag on the badges to print your online name as that was the new novelty.

Imagine trying to a convention and letting people in for free that had a Muck logon?

They would have had hardly any money to pay for the hotel as everybody got on the free admission bandwagon.

I did ask both Mark and Rodney as well as many of the old CF staff people and found that legend to be false.

More inaccurate information:

"In a rare instance of furry self-regulation, Merlino himself would be ousted from control of ConFurence in a wave of fan-political dramaqueenery. The fallout from the Confurence 8 convention disaster prompted many furries to attempt to clean up their act."

This is also Bullshit...

I was on staff at that convention.

I was there in the middle of Mark stepping down from CF10. When the convention moved to San Diego the convention has far less people show up, as well as less staff and volunteers. The lack of help was the last straw and Mark announced that he was going to step down.

He was not "Ousted" from the flack of CF8.

I suggest not using "Crush Yiff Destroy" as a source of actual information as it is just a slander board that never turns down a good nasty story.


--User:Calbeck: I should point out right here and now that I am the "anonymous user". My apologies, but since I expected that this would be my one and only Wiki article, I did not feel that getting an account was necessary. I can understand how some would feel leery about an unknown person writing such a purportedly authoritative article, however, and so I apologize for not at least identifying myself in the text. My real name is Scott Malcomson.

That said, the section on Merlino and ConFurence comes from direct experience. I attended CF beginning with #4 --- indeed, I was the infamous "mad bomber" whose costume was used as pretext by a fundamentalist Christian security chief to try and run the convention out of the Red Lion hotel in Costa Mesa. I continued to attend ConFurence (though not as a costumer, having learned my lesson on that score), missing only one or two instances right up to the end. I also attended San Diego Comic Con and other conventions with a furry presence in California, as well as launching my own small and short-lived furrycon (ZonieCon) which ran for several years before internal politics led to its demise.

I've been a furfan for some twelve years now, and am a historian at heart, so I picked up lore and tidbits here and there, talking to various artists, writers and fans over the years. I do not pass on simple gossip, however. If it has not been verified by a reliable source, or by myself directly, I consider it an "interesting tale" but not "history".

Regarding Merlino's marketing of ConFurence to the gay community through specialty magazines, this was confirmed at ConDorCon in the mid-'90s when furry artist Lia Graf directly faced down Mr. Merlino at a convention panel (where I was in attendance) and asked him if he had been doing this. He admitted to the action and said he felt that sexual diversity would do the fandom good.

I have also personally witnessed the ConFurence booth pressing forward with "sexual diversity" as its main marketing ploy at various San Diego Comic Cons, as well as at VegasCon. In all cases where I was witness, spooge art was in high profile --- in fact, it was virtually all there was to see. At VegasCon in particular, the main attraction was a portfolio of Terrie Smith's porn prints, of which a pony jacking off in the snow while on his back was pretty much the standard. While perusing the tome, a fellow furry began singing "He's a Well-Hung Plowboy" and wouldn't shut up. Indeed, he raised his voice as people passed, some clearly trying to avoid him. He turned out to be booth staff.

Given this record of marketing spooge as the fandom's main attraction and reason for a convention, it should not be surprising that a large percentage of new attendees would be persons seeking similar material and a sex-oriented convention. From my experience in attending CF, the percentage of attendees who had come looking for a sexual experience skyrocketed between CF4 and CF8, and the number of people who were interested in displaying their sexual fetishes in public venues likewise increased.

This increase resulted in friction between those who considered the fandom a "lifestyle" and those who considered it a hobby, the latter feeling more and more crowded by people whose lack of sexual inhibitions often crossed the line in inappropriate ways. Many artists and writers whose skills founded and expanded the early fandom have left now because they do not want to be associated with people who cannot seem to keep their sex lives to themselves. Others maintain contact but keep themselves distant from all but a few close friends. The "free love" mentality prevalent in much of the fandom has very much been a divisive factor as a result.

Regarding CYD: it was founded by people who have a very personal grudge against certain persons in the fandom, and the site is heavily used to advance those grudges. For example, CYD attacks artist Mitchell Beiro for his faux marriage to Minerva Mink at one ConFurence.

CYD treats the entire event as though it had been deadly serious. Yet neither Mitchell nor anyone else in attendance took it seriously at all. The entire thing was one long comedy skit. I should know, I was the priest. Amongst other things I carried to the podium were a bottle that I took "hits" off of for comedic effect. My clerical collar was a piece of tissue paper folded and tucked into my trenchcoat neck. Pointing this out to the CYD folks resulted in no change to the article at all...they are not interested in accuracy, though they like to claim otherwise on a frequent basis.

It is also true that Mark Merlino stepped down as a matter of a personal decision and not due to any fannish flack from CF8. In fact, much of that flack had been in evidence at prior conventions, and made no impact on CF's operations. Nor was CF8 Mark's last, as noted by Changa. CYD's article is primarily composed of rumormongering that its writer never bothered to confirm before giving full credence.

The author of the Confurence section should back up his statements better. For instance, for "CF staff were promoting the convention in specialized magazines aimed at the gay community of California" should provide the publication, date, and page number. For other events, while it wouldn't be absolute proof, there should be links to con reports, journal entries, etc, dated to that time period available. Otherwise, it may fall under original research. If it is kept, the bulk of the Confurence material should be moved to the Confurence page. RainR 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with RainR, above. Almost half the article is about Confurence at this point; it really ought to be moved to its own page. —Xydexx 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


--User:Calbeck: I will reiterate, for the benefit of RainR: Mark Merlino admitted to these actions before a packed room at ConDorCon, an act to which I and many other furries was a witness. He was asked a direct question on the subject and answered directly, stating that he felt that the advertising would do the convention good by increasing the diversity of its attendees. Given that a direct confession from the person responsible was made public, presenting the minutae of what ads were published in what magazines, on what pages and on what dates is moot.

As for con reports, journal entries and so forth, I am relating a period that spans over a decade. Hundreds of references would be required, spamming the article itself, and the vast majority of relevant material remains in dead-tree, non-electronic format, much of which was copyrighted for the purpose of fanzine publication.

Nonetheless, there are in fact already links on this Wiki page which refer to the history I have covered. A direct link exists, for example, to a letter by Mr. Ed Kline (professional costumer and propmaker, whose works have appeared in popular shows such as Babylon Five). This letter, filed to the Internet via alt.fan.furry in 1997, mirrors virtually all of the material I have covered in my own portion of this Wiki article on Furries. Anyone who wishes to call into question my coverage of CF need only refer to Mr. Kline's letter, and then they will have two witnesses --- myself and Mr. Kline --- who agree on these details. Further agreement can be had by interviewing most of the "old guard pros" who resided in the fandom prior to 1998, when the fallout over bad behavior at CF had gotten so bad that several regional conventions were spontaenously created, specifically for people to escape from CF's problems.

Needless Image removal

Give me one good reason why you removed the Usagi Yojimbo image considering you didn't bother to when you removed it. Usagi Yojimbo is one of the most successful furry characters in the subgenre's history and it has a definite place in this article since I used it as a prime example of one of Furry fiction's favourite motifs. -Kchishol

Usagi Yojimbo should be included, as Usagi Yojimbo's creator Stan Sakai was Guest Of Honor at Anthrocon in 2004. He said it was one of the best conventions he's attended in years. (Uncle Kage posted Mr. Sakai's report he wrote for the Comic Arts Professional Society here.) —Xydexx

I should add that Stan Sakai has also been a longtime contributor to furry fandom's original and still-ongoing fanzine: Rowrbrazzle. About the time he began working on Sergio Aragones' "Groo the Wanderer" as inker in the late '80s, Stan first published his Usagi stories in "Critters", at the time the premiere furry anthology comic, especially catering to the newly-emergent fandom and its best talent. He also published his Nilsson Groundthumper tales through the same venue. In fact, it's safe to say that without furry fandom's initial support for Usagi, it would not have been picked up by Mirage and later Dark Horse for publication. As it was, Stan's furry background gave him a built-in and provable readership numbering in the thousands which he could effectively take to the bank. --- Calbeck

Apparently, thanks to Quadell, I can't restore the image so I have to make do with a book cover to partially undue a senseless change he does not have the guts to defend. --- kchishol1970

Dude. If you want to talk to me, leave me a message on my talk page. Furry isn't on my watch list. And please refrain from making personal attacks. I really wasn't trying to annoy anyone here.
The image was deleted (properly) because it had no source information and no license information. We can't use images that are copyright violations. Someone listed the image on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images over a month ago, and no one found the image source. After an image has been listed there for thirty days, it's Wikipedia policy to delete it. I've deleted hundreds of copyright-violation images listed there over the past week or so. This was just one of them.
If you can find the image, you can re-upload it. Please include a proper image copyright tag and source information, so it won't be relisted on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you can't find it, then it's certainly a violation, and we shouldn't have been using it anyway. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
What Quadell said, plus I'll note that the deletion was hardly hasty, as the image was first tagged as unverified back in February of 2004. See articles such as Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia image use policies. Whatever one may personally think about the current copyright laws, understand that Wikipedia needs to make a good faith attempt to stay within the law in order to continue to exist. There is a lot we can make use of under fair use in context. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


NPOV further

I really have to question whether the view of the conflicts between the more sexual and less sexual aspects of furridom should be characterized as being between Gay Priders and the older fandom members. It seems an editorial opinion, rather than a hard fact. I think the section could be modified to note the conflicts occured, the increase of homosexual and bisexual fans as well as other sexual fans, without imposing presumed views and motives on one side of the argument. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 03:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


--User:Calbeck:

Note, firstly, that I use the term "Gay Prider" to separate extremist agitators who happen to be gay from the mainstream of the gay community. "Gay Prider" refers to extreme actions or statements made by an individual who believes they are defending what they perceive as "gay rights". An example would be those who, during a Gay Pride March (a few of which I have marched in myself on behalf of the actual rights of gay friends), stop to moon a cathedral on the way past. Another example would be to call the Pope a Nazi. Both instances have occurred.

Defending extremely sexualized public behavior, such as wearing bondage gear (or just a single strategically-placed Dixie cup) while strolling around the public areas of Knott's Berry Farm, would likewise be reasonably defined as "extremist" and thus fall into the area of extremist actions and statements taken and made by "Gay Priders". This also has happened. It happened at ConFurence and was defended by certain vocal members of the fandom. How should I refer to them as a group or other form of generality, if not as "Gay Priders"? How in fact do they differ from "Gay Priders", except in that they are also furries?

In point of fact, when complaints were raised on alt.fan.furry about bad public behavior on the part of various individuals at CF, the people who responded in defense of the offending actions did so using the very same arguments (and accusations) routinely encountered amongst "Gay Priders". A letter to a.f.f. asking people going to CF to "tone it down on the public sex", for example, was usually treated as though the writer had demanded gays go back into the closet. Most responses devolved instantly to the level of personal insults and remained mired there so long as anyone might attempt a discussion on the subject. Accusations of religious zealotry were common, exemplified perhaps by the phrase "keep your religious ideology off my body". Even well-known Wiccans and agnostics, if they did not agree with the Gay Priders, were occasionally slapped with a "religious nut" tag.

Another case example took place when I announced the creation of ZonieCon as an Arizona regional furcon that would not tolerate the sexual scandals of CF. One person then announced his intention to attend the convention half-naked in boytoy leather and demanded to know what we'd do about it. I stated we would not allow him in and would call the police if he insisted on trying to crash our party. He kept on about it for another week, treating the entire issue as though I were violating some sort of civil rights of his. Various others jumped into the argument from time to time to take his side on the subject. The foofarah only ended when I finally decided to ignore him, and he never did follow up on his threat in any event.

To my knowledge, no one --- not even the Burned Furs --- has ever made a call for eliminating homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism or even fetishism from the fandom. Rather, the most extreme demand which has ever been made is that such people keep their sexual preferences a matter for themselves and those of similar mind. Which is the extreme position: to call for such a thing, or to accuse the person calling for such a thing a "fascist"?

I do feel linking 'troubles in the fandom' and 'gays' is at best a uncertain thing, and I feel the article could be approached with more general terms.
None the less, Gay Pride as a term is NOT an appropreate term to use in this case. If you have in fact walked in Gay Pride parades, I doubt you'd want to have the actions of the disruptive elements labled as the typical behavior of people who participate in such parades, or in the Gay Rights movement in general. I feel you're using the term in a very personal, rather than general, understanding of the phrase.
I have not even seen the term Gay Priders used in general context for this sort of person or behavior at all, so I don't think you can call it a fandom slang term. I feel a more suitable description is needed. I would suggest "Sexual rights extremists" or "Gay rights extremists". I mean, you don't see personal slang terms being used to describe the older generation in your article. It would be as suitable as me going through and replacing the phrase "fandom's original membership" with Fuddy duddies.Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 18:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re: "How should I refer to them as a group or other form of generality, if not as "Gay Priders"?" You could call them "poorly-behaved individuals" instead of scapegoating gays, lifestylers, etc. The arguments on AFF have never been against public decorum; they've been against making faulty generalizations and blaming people for things they didn't do in the first place. —Xydexx 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CSI reference

I just attempted to iNPOVise on the reference to CSI which was emotionally charged. It's not great but it's better than nothing. Could anyone look up this episode and provide more useful details on exactly why it's seen as ill-researched? That could help the NPOV aspect. --ThomasWinwood 02:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The CSI writers overexaggerated the sexual aspects of the fandom in an effort to provide more titillating viewing for prime time. The specifics can be found at http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/csi.html. –Xydexx 03:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CSI reference

The CSI Episode Fur and Loathing was ill-researched because they had the actors going in to a convention and there was a fur pile. I assure everyone that conventions keep that away from the public eye. Whatever furs do in the privacy of their own hotel rooms is their preference and privilage. They also made us out to be perverts who wear fursuits to have sex in, carry plushies everywhere, and growl at people. All of us do not do this. Most furries are educated people who have been in college, and this is our way of unwinding. I myself am a furry and I have held many supervisor positions without anyone ever knowing I was furry. The fact of the matter is that you could be standing right next to a furry and never know. A lot of us don't even go to conventions, and more of us have never worn or own a fursuit. It's a matter of preference. I'll wear a tail and ears on occassion and sometimes even put on a dog collar depending on my mood and if it matches my clothes. But aside from all that we do not have orgies, have sex with animals, eat babies, worship satan, howl at the moon, etc. Most furries enjoy furry artwork, cartoons, chatting, and just having a good time. So saying the good folks at CSI should have really researched the topic much more before they wrote the script, there was a fur involved in consulting but I producers want gritty and they may or may not have made any changes. (If he called for them.) On the other hand to really get a good standing on the sub-culture you have to talk to more then just one furry, because as with everyone views differ from person to person.

Thanks.

Err, if you pay attention to the episode, its clearly shown that the "fur piling" and such is in a private room party. As in, the privacy of their own hotel room. Really the major inaccuracies are, at least at the one con I went to, AC 2001, people in fursuits are a vast minority. You don't see a hotel lobby full of nothing but fursuits. And the fursuit lined with latex or whatever it was. You'd die if you did that!

Reorganization

Neutrality issues aside, could we get some of the content of this page moved to furry fandom and yiff, respectively? No more than a paragraph each is needed in this article; the article should just describe the meaning of the adjective and noun, not descriptions of every bone the vandal had to pick when he heard the word 'furry'. Almafeta 12:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furry art pictures

I've also noticed that there are no examples of fan-made furry art posted in this article. Does anyone here know of a furry artist who draws in a fairly typical style (either Disney or quasi-realistic cartoonish fantasy a la XianJaguar or Kyoht) who would be willing to donate an image to this article? I know furry artists are rabid about copyrights, but if someone knows a furry artist who's willing to either provide an image under the GPL or create a new one specifically for this article, illustrating a typical furry art style, that would be a good thing to add to this article as well.

If no one knows anybody who can do this, I could probably dig up some of my older, more "furry" material, but frankly that stuff is pretty low quality, from when I was 12-15 years old, and probably not the kind of thing most furries want to represent their art. -- Krishva 21:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Why does this page say that the only reason people avoid categorizing mainstream works as furry is because they aren't aware of furries? Furries are a very specialized group that goes far beyond just "liking cartoon animals," which is what this article seems to imply. I have made a few gentle edits on this article as an unregistered user before, to try to add implication of the fact that many people outside the fandom who are aware of furries view furry material as being fandom-created art and stories, with mainstream "talking animal" characters excluded. People have many reasons for this, though all of them usually involve viewing the furry fandom in a negative light. The fact that my edits, which still referenced the furry point of view that any talking animal is a furry, have been continually removed states something about the POV nature of this entire article.

The sexual aspect, which can be argued as extremely significant for the fandom as a whole, is still dodged around and played down, as if the intent is to put off a "cleaner" image than is actually accurate. Another instance of the article being POV. Anyone familiar with furries is aware of the comically exaggerated nature of the CSI episode and that is worthy of being noted, but there is no reason to avoid mentioning things like the widespread furry adversity to censorship, the raw popularity of furry porn artists in comparison to generic furry artists, the presence of popular "adults only" rooms in conventions, and long-standing pornographic furry art archives like VCL (and new ones like FurAffinity).

It's also worth mentioning societal quirks of furry fans in general. Extreme introversion, mild autistic syndromes such as Asperger's, a tendancy toward paraphilias, and other psychological issues are more visibly common among furries than most other breeds of geek (even anime/manga). I'd like to see this article edited to be more NPOV. -- Krishva 20:53, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, it should be included (in a nice, NPOV way) that there are some (many?) people outside of the fandom that see it in a negative light, and that they only accept the word "furry" on works done by people calling themselves that. And there could also be a bit more about the furry sexuality, although I think the current section is quite OK. Sure, you can make more money with furry porn than with furry art, but you can also make more money with "mundane" porn than with normal art, so I don't think that's a very notable thing here. There are also no "adults only" rooms in conventions, at least here in europe. Maybe that's different in the USA, I don't know. Calling VCL a "long-standing pornographic furry art archive" is also quite misleading. It is an archive where furry artists can put everything they like, including porn and cute little bunnies. And IMHO we shouldn't add anything about the personality of furries, everyone is different, and that they are more like this or more like that is in general just your (or my) POV. I think you only see more psychological unstable furries because websites like somethingawful point them out for us. I'm sure you can find alot of mentally unstable persons on the anime/manga genre as well. Oh, and most of this should be moved to Furry fandom anyways, as Almafeta pointed out. That article describes the actual fandom behind the word "Furry", while this article should only describe the word and its meaning. --Conti|✉ 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I know there are "adults only" rooms at some U.S. furry cons, I do not know how things are run in Europe.
It's not really true that you can make more money with porn than normal art in any genre--it depends on your audience. If your audience wants to jerk to the subject matter, porn makes more money. If your audience wants something pretty to hang above their sofa, porn will not make so much money (except in the case of furries--I've heard of cases of furry fans hanging furry pornography in their living rooms, which is probably uncommon but still pretty weird).
VCL is frequently the choice of pornographers who have nowhere else to post their work, and it's not uncommon to see a tentacle rape scene right above or below a drawing of a cute rabbit or whatever. They include warnings but do not censor the erotic material from public view. As a result their site can be considered to be geared toward an "adult" audience.
I think mention of the fandom is pretty important in this article, as fandom is arguably a huge part of calling something "furry" to begin with. I am aware that all people are different, but there is a disturbingly large number of visible weirdos/crazies in the furry fandom (along with a lot of perfectly normal people, and this should definitely be pointed out as well). There are weirdos in other fandoms as well, but it just seems like they're a lot more visible in furry, whether there are actually more of them or not. This is why I believe they should be mentioned, either here or in the furry fandom article. -- Krishva 07:19, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we have been very diligent in ensuring this article remains NPOV. I think it's no secret that this article has been targeted for vandalism by groups like Crush Yiff Destroy, Something Awful, and Eat All Furries, who no doubt would like to see such the sort of "facts" you've provided incorporated into this article. The POV assertation that there are a "disturbingly large number" of weirdos/crazies visible in furry fandom wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that those sites deliberately seek them out, would it?
The reality is, despite the misconceptions which have been bandied about by the media (and repeated ad nauseum by folks who have nothing better to do than troll furries) the various paraphilias some hear about are A) a very small percentage (i.e., 1%—see David Rust's comprehensive study on Furry Sociology) of the fandom, and B) irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway. I know a lot of furry fans who are into geocaching, but that doesn't mean geocaching has anything to do with furry fandom.
Sorry if this means I'm "taking this too seriously" and spoiling your fun, but I'd like Wikipedia to remain a useful resource. —Xydexx 04:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. Xydexx, but firstly what I have done outside Wikipedia is my own business and none of yours, so I'd prefer if you stayed out of it. My conduct here has been nothing short of civil and my edits have been modest, so I don't suppose you are in any position to accuse me of troublemaking.
Secondly, I am not out to provide misinformation here. I am interested in Wikipedia being a neutral resource, and I've seen passages from this article bandied about as supposed "proof" in arguments about issues that are subjective at best. I believe that all sides of an argument should be presented here, and if an issue is debatable, it should be stated as such. This article presents a severely biased point of view, and the fact that you remove comments stating that an issue is debatable or some people do not agree with a certain point proves that. This article is totally 100% furry POV; you either delete all outside opinions or display them as some kind of cruel lie perpetrated by a furry-hating media.
I would appreciate if you would let other opinions stand, regardless of whether you like the mouth they come out of. Heaven knows I don't like you, Xydexx, but I don't care what you say in the article as long as it's actually true (or at least designated as an opinion rather than fact, if that's what it is). --Krishva 04:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I suggested including mention of the visibility of weirdos is because they're easy to find even if you're not using SomethingAwful or other atrocity tourism sites as resources. It's an aspect of furry fandom that people are likely to have bumped into, even if they haven't had any experience with such websites. Therefore, it's relevent.
If this article is biased toward anything, it's biased toward accurate information.
And no, contrary to claims of victimhood, my problem is with the misinformation attempted to incorporate into this article. I'm sure some people are having a giggle elsewhere about how I'm "taking this too seriously" and giving you precisely the reaction you were going for . If someone says "2+2=4" and someone else says "2+2=6", that does not mean 2+2=5. —Xydexx 02:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not something that Wikipedia is accustomed to, I'm afraid. Despite how some people might... ah, what would I call it, incite drama by digging into another user's personal details, history and habits on Wikipedia and other sites, I don't think it's suitable here. This is hardly livejournal or a forum, but an encylopedia. Please talk about the article rather than the person. I'm going to take the liberty to edit your replies and remove any reference you make against the person you are trying so hard to insult. -Grumpyhan 04:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Xydexx, this article is biased toward what furries want the world to think about furries. Some of the information is accurate, and some is exaggerated or barely mentioned. A lot of it is presented in a very POV way, and with some edits to make the tone more neutral, would be fine. This isn't a furry publicity briefing, this is an encyclopedia. Therefore even the less pleasant parts of furry should be admitted to and covered here (in a neutral tone, of course) along with the clean aspects. I personally think the whole article is in need of an overhaul, for the sake of better organization as well as neutrality.
The fact that you've made repeated personal attacks on me really isn't giving me any confidence that this is not a personal issue for you. I reiterate that I am not here to cause trouble, I am taking an interest in this article for the sake of presenting objective information. -- Krishva 05:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
To Grumpyhan: while it's okay to refactor other peoples' posts, there are a few guidelines you should follow. See the article on how to remove personal attacks. To Xydexx, personal attacks are NOT allowed on talk pages. I checked Krishva's edits and they were neither slanderous toward the subject or necessarily false. Some of the wording could have been changed, granted, but whether or not her edits were NPOV should depend on the text of the edit, not the Wikipedian's past history. Don't assume people are trying to cause trouble. Thank you. --Prangton 20:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not pointing out Krishva's past behavior as a personal attack, but to bring up a legitimate concern. As per Grumpyhan's precedent, I have removed the personal attacks against me by Krishva. I'm sure Grumpyhan's failure to remove these was just an oversight on his part. I stand by my assertation that adding misinformation to Wikipedia for "humor" value is detrimental to NPOV. I disagree with Grumpyhan's claim that pointing out people who may not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind is "creating drama" and apparent implication that people who pride themselves on baiting people to get a reaction somehow isn't. I have taken the liberty of restoring the previously-deleted link so that this important issue may be addressed further and discussed. Xydexx 01:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for any personal attacks on my part--I did not notice that I had made any, but my temper has gotten understandably short in the face of false accusations. It is clear that I am not here to cause trouble if you view my past history on Wikipedia itself: I've made a large number of useful revisions and even written a couple articles and some stubs. I don't have any motivation for causing problems here--no, not even for "humor value." I know where such behavior is appropriate and where it isn't, thank you. As Prangton said, my edits to this article were far from volatile. You're reading way more into this than you should be. I am not out to "get" anybody here.
I see that you have restored the link to a Google-cached copy of a DA page from over a year ago (the original version of which is now gone) as "evidence," but I honestly don't mind. Those who may be tempted to remove the link shouldn't worry too much about it. In context, my comments aren't anywhere near as damning as you make them out to be, but you're welcome to discuss them all you like. No one else here seems to especially care, much less think that the fact that I've made fun of furries in the past means I'm incapable of providing accurate information in an article about them. --Krishva 04:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Merge fandom into fandom article?

Furry is pretty much long enough to stand on it's own without the direct inclusion of the material on furry fandom. The fact that anthropomorphic animals can be discussed without any mention of Furry Fandom (as is mostly the case in the top of the article) is a pretty good argument for seperating the material.

The furry fandom article is almost completely lacking a discussion of the controversy, so some text from here should be brought over. I think it's likely that all the fandom parts could then be removed from furry (giving links where appropriate), but I'd like to see what others here think.

However, I don't believe it should be directly merged as much of this text stinks from an NPOV perspective: On wikipedia we need to write our articles as a dispassionate outside observer would write, so rather than giving and argument we should present the argument along and say who supports it, as specifically as we are able.

I'd be glad to help with such a process. --Gmaxwell 04:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree that some of the material should be moved, but not all of it. Anthropomorphic animals are only called "furries" by members of the furry fandom--therefore, the inclusion of the fandom in this article is important. A lot of the more detailed "history" information could easily be moved, though. -- Krishva 05:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've seen lots of non-furry-fandom people refer to "furries" (usually in a derogatory context :). The history of fandom stuff should certainly be merged, but I think furry should remain as an article about what furries are. Bryan 05:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the main point of contention here is that when people use the phrase "furries" in such a manner, they're referring spesifically to people in the fandom, etc. The term is certianly used as a prejoritive against some kinds of illustration, writing, etc. but usually within this context. I still think that having a "What is a furry?" section in the furry fandom article might be more useful than having a whole article devoted to the term itself - it's been mentioned many times that a wiktionary entry would suffice, or that there would be no problem with the furry article re-appearing when it can be sufficiently differentiated from the furry fandom article. The main point of contention right now is that we want to solidify information on the subculture and its components so it can be edited cohesively, and then split as necessary, as well as the unnecessary amount of duplication in articles. If you feel that you can differentiate the furry article sufficiently from furry fandom, start yet another section on the talk page and I'd be more than interested to hear your ideas. -- Stiv 06:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ditto this. However, for the time being, if people would like to work on differentiating the furry article from the furry fandom one, then that's fine with me. Else, I think we should go ahead with the merger. --Prangton 06:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, furry and furry fandom should really be the same article. One should be chosen as the official article, and the other should redirect to it. In this article furry is referred to as a fandom--why have two articles about the same thing? --Krishva 05:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well you're right about the furry community being the only people using the word furry for anthropomorphic animals.. But the top of the article is mostly about anthropomorphic animals. Perhaps we merge all the furry community related things into furry fandom, rename Furry to "Anthropomorpic animals" (care to suggest a more succinct name?) and redirect Furry to Furry fandom. --Gmaxwell 05:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC) I should have read first.. We already have a pretty good article on anthropomorphism... Perhaps anything in Furry not fandom related should get merged there, and the rest merged into the fandom article. --Gmaxwell 05:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really a need for furry material to be merged anywhere--anthropomorphic animals are already covered in other articles, like anthropomorphism and funny animal, which includes most of the material listed as "Inspirational sources" in this article. The only thing the Furry article does does is explain anthropomorphism as it influences furry fandom, it's not a good source on anthropomorphism in general. --Krishva 06:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Furry is not, by far, a mainstream word for anthropomorphic animals, nor was it the first. It's only used by members of the furry fandom who, while considerable in number, aren't in the majority. Therefore, unlike funny animal (which is an established genre of comic and cartoon style) and anthropomorphism (which doesn't necessarily even have to apply to animals), furry is inseperable from its fandom and doesn't really belong in either of those two articles. However, it should be noted that the furry fandom could not exist without the source material. So I motion that this entire article be merged into the furry fandom article. --Prangton 20:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see evidence to back up the claim that members of furry fandom "aren't in the majority." Usage of "furry" outranks usage of "funny animal" for referring to anthropomorphic animals by a collosal margin. —Xydexx 09:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
"Furry" remains the most commonly-used term for anthropomorphic animals today. While "funny animal" means the same thing, the term is considered outdated by many. I could probably say there is no organized "funny animal" fandom, except there is—it is called furry fandom.
Also as per previous comments by others in this thread, the Rise And Fall Of Confurence really ought to be moved to the Confurence article. —Xydexx 09:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Furry is far from being the most commonly-used term for anthropomorphic animals or that it is in the majority. Most people who are unaware of the furry subculture on the Internet (which is to say, the majority of the world population) would call anthropomorphic animals in animation, illustrations or comics as either funny animal or talking animal. The term funny animal is used in the animation field rather than furry (unless they are saying "furry woodland creatures", which they most probably wouldn't just shorten to "furry"), and I do recall seeing the phrase talking animal (rather than furry) used in the book by Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas (of the Nine Old Men of Walt Disney), The Illusion of Light.
I have also recently read Animation Art: From Pencil to Pixel, the World of Cartoon, Anime, and CGI by Jerry Beck, who is quite adept in animation research. In here too the phrases talking animal and funny animal were used rather than furry. In fact, at any point where anthropomorphic animal cartoons appear in the articles within either as the main subject or a reference, there is no reference to the subculture. As the animation business involves a great number of individuals, including Chuck Jones, Tex Avery and the Nine Old Men, I think it is safe to say that the number of people who uses other phrases than "furry" to describe anthropomorphic animals outnumber those who do. -- Grumpyhan 13:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I would argue that the majority of the population has no name for them at all. I think what we need to do for wikipedia is actually clarify the distinction between furry and talking animal. It's been a long time since the beginnings of furry fandom and the definitions have changed a lot. As it is, the difference between funny animal and furry is pretty similar to the difference between robots and androids. Androids are very similar to robots. In fact, you could even describe them as robots. However, the term android also has other important connotations that seperates them from the rest of robots. It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this.
The term furry absolutely refers to its fandom. There's no way around that. If there is and I just don't see it, I'm going to need a lot of convincing, especially since every link on the first page of a Google search for furry (if we're using Google as a reliable source), minus a link to the site of the band Super Furry Animals, is a fandom-related site. I think it's essential that the two articles be and stay merged. We can use the funny animal and talking animal sections to talk about those two particular (though closely related) genres and do a fairly good job of it at that. They are good as they are, and that's why they're articles seperate from the Furry one. Insofar as they're related to the furry fandom, it's no surprise that they should be linked to from the Furry page, since they have so much to do with its fandom. However, there's no reason to go over the same information twice on two different pages. Furry fans may refer to the funny animal genre as being furry, but AFAIK this is only something that furries do. And I suppose it's true, from their POV. But we're not trying to write from the furries' POV. That would make the article biased toward the very same. This is why this article has gotten the NPOV flag so often. From the point of view of furry fans, the information is correct, and if we mention their opinions as gospel, we have to make sure that it's clearly marked that this is the point of view of furry fans in order to let the people reading the article make their own decisions. This is why I've been editing out terms like spreading misinformation (sorry Xydexx), they're loaded and hold an opinion that doesn't necessarily belong to everyone.
I'm not editing stuff out and quibbling over words because I have an axe to grind, because I don't. I've had misgivings about furry fans before, and while yes, I will admit, some of them seem ridiculous, I have a lot of respect for other furry fans who are using their interests and doing something really interesting with it. I don't hate furries. I have no idea why I have to be on the defensive about this, I don't need to be. I think my edits are justified and unbiased, but I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. However, with regards to this insanely long shouting match re: funny animal/talking animal vs. furry, we need to justify having these seperate articles that say the same thing. I know we aren't going to reach a consensus by continuously rolling back other peoples' edits. We've been doing that for ages and it obviously hasn't worked. I know we have points in common, but we need to change these articles to reflect that. Stubbornness will not work, and I'm speaking to both sides of the argument, here. We need articles that are clean and consise, comprehensive etc. So here, let's try to work out a solution. My proposal goes something like this:
We have the furry and furry fandom articles merged. I propose this be under the furry fandom article. On that page we discuss matters pertaining to the furry fandom, its conflicts and perceptions, its culture, so to speak, etc. Sort of like an anthropological field guide to the furry fandom. We also link to funny animal talking animal, and probably anthropomorphism, since those topics are pretty much the key genres that the furry fandom is based around.
The funny animal and talking animal sections' X vs. furry sections would be moved to the furry fandom page, and replaced with something short like this genre is one of the inspirations for the furry fandom. People reading about those genres do not necessarily need to know that much about what the furry fandom is. We can, also, mention that the terms are used interchangably with furry, but we also have to mention that this is done chiefly by the furry fandom. This isn't misinformation! It's perfectly true. We don't need to go much beyond that, since other than as an inspirational source, the talking animal and funny animal genres are relatively a seperate entity from the furry fandom (i.e. the genres can exist without their fandom, not so the other way around). We use those pages to talk about what, exactly the funny animal and talking animal genres are. We use the furry fandom page to talk about the furry fandom.
Does this seem reasonable and unbiased? I hope it does. Thanks a lot. --Prangton 01:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


Okay, we're currently in the process of moving stuff from the Furry article over to Furry fandom. If you have anything you'd like to carry over, please do so! --Prangton 03:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Better Example?

From the article:

A popular motif in the art and fiction which inspires furries is to give the characters personality traits that contradict those traditionally associated with the animal they embody. For example, in the comic book Usagi Yojimbo Miyamoto Usagi is a skilled and ferocious rabbit samurai, whereas rabbits are generally viewed in Western culture to be docile and helpless.

This example only applies to Western culture. It's also a bit confusing because, although Stan Sakai, the artist behind Usagi Yojimbo, has been living in America since the age of 2, the comic is set in a Japanese environment, so it's unclear as to whether we should go by Western or Eastern attributions to rabbits. Can we find an example of this which is more universally applicable so we don't need to quibble in matters of cultural distinctions?

As well, if the statement isn't true beyond a handful of examples, that paragraph could probably be removed entirely.

--Prangton 21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Prangton. I believe that there are other examples of anthropomorphic characters being used in contrast to their percieved, cultural incarnation. I know that there are many but -like most people- I'm stymied to actually think of one on the spot.
Are there any you can think of that go beyond the one, provided example?
--Sylvan 16:29, 6 May 2005 (CST)

No, I haven't given that sort of thing much thought. Besides, more often than not the opposite is true; foxes are shown as clever or sly, for example. That's generally the point of anthropomorphism. I think the paragraph should just go. Are there any objections?

--Prangton 01:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, yet. You see, I see the point they were trying to make. Some Furries purposefully take an anthro and run them counter to their expected characteristics. For example, a submissive bull (minotaur) or an unlucky rabbit.
However, most of the examples that I've seen have come from people's actual characters; not professional sources like Usagi Yo-Jimbo (which seems to be the exception.) It appears that it is the furries themselves who like turning stereotypes on their heads...
--Sylvan 21:53, 6 May 2005 (CST)

I see that, but just because "some furries" do it doesn't make it a general rule. "Some furries" do a lot of different things. If we wrote an article on what "some furries" do, it would be 8 miles long!

Regardless, the paragraph should probably be edited to reflect the distinction between furry fans and the pro artists. --Prangton

Richard Kyanka quote

From the article:

Finally, Richard Kyanka, owner of Something Awful, said of those continuing to maliciously troll furries (and others): "Dumb people cannot make jokes, so dumb people latch on to others people's jokes and think that if their joke is funny one time, then repeating it 1000 times makes it 1000 times as funny."

I don't know where this quote was taken from, how am I supposed to know it's supposed to be about furries? It could apply to anything. An external link for context would be handy. Until then, it's out of the article.

--Prangton 05:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The Richard Kyanka quote was taken directly from the Something Awful forums in February, from a thread appropriately titled "Why must you fuck up every other forum/chat/message board?", during a (rare, IMHO) bit of navel-gazing in which they discuss the bad reputation SA Goons have been getting. The original link is here, though I assume you need a forums account to access it at this point.
If you want a quote that mentions furries specifically, there's the earlier (but far more, ah, colorful) response from forum user Rrail, who wrote: "This seems like as good a place as any to say that every time I read some faggot on this forum spouting off a catchphrase I have to restrain myself from saying something to them. Relating to that, STOP FUCKING POSTING ABOUT FURRIES, IN ANY CONTEXT. It's fucking stupid. It's not cutting edge, and it's not funny." However, I think the quote from Richard Kyanka is more appropriate as he actually owns the website. —Xydexx 06:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

While the Rrail quote is appropriate and mentions furries directly, the Richard Kyanka one does not, and it seems like the context it was taken from (I can't view that thread, since I don't have a subscription to the Something Awful forums) isn't specifically about furries, but rather about the thread's subject, which was the bad reputation of SA Goons. While this group has been known to make fun of furries every now and then, they aren't the only butt of Something Awful's jokes, good or bad. I agree with the quote's sentiment with regards to furries, but I don't think it belongs in the article because it could just as easily apply to other situations where bad jokes happen. --Prangton

Personally I don't think the Conflicts section belongs in the article at all, as it has less to do with furries and more to do with people who have problems with furries. But I'm not the one who put it there originally, so I'll just correct any misinformation as it comes up.
Turnabout being fair play, I'd like an external link or context for the John Kricfalusi quote. My understanding of the "John Kricfalusi hates furries" rumor was that it was based on a portfolio by Charla Trotman (co-founder of the now-defunct group Burned Fur) being rejected, and she used that as an excuse. The truth behind the rumor was much less sinister—John Kricfalusi hates everything. —Xydexx 07:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no idea where that idea came from--I have tried to find a context, but unfortunately it is just something that I've heard pretty widely accepted as fact in the furry fandom. My apologies. Regardless, I'd like to see some mention in the conflicts section about how such rumors exist about the animation industry's disdain for furries.
Whether the conflict section is ultimately moved over in the merge to the furry fandom article is yet to be seen. I'm torn as to whether it should be included. I personally get the feeling that it should stay, as conflict with the outside world seems to be a pretty central issue for the furry fandom. -- Krishva 08:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the central issue for us is anthropomorphic animals. That's ultimately what this article should be focused on instead of getting dragged down rabbit holes over things it isn't about in the first place. Xydexx 08:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
There are a lot more issues that seem to be significant to the furry fandom, though, and they're worth mentioning because they're significant and therefore relevant. --Krishva 08:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
As someone else stated above, if you tried to include everything "some furries" do, this article would be 8 miles long. I know a lot of furries who go geocaching; that doesn't mean geocaching is relevant to the article. Just because something "seems to be" significant doesn't automatically mean it's relevant.
Things which are relevant: Anthropomorphic animals. The artwork, stories, costuming, puppeteering, conventions, comics, zines, and furry-related online news sources and forums. Things which actually have something to do with furry fandom.
Things which are irrelevant: Unsubstantiated estimates about how a "large number" of furry fans are allergic to tinfoil, intellectually dishonest repetition of long-since-debunked schlockumentaries stating furry fandom is about sticking bananas in their ears, unconfirmed rumors (from dubious sources with an axe to grind) that a furry fan once almost bought some shiny blue sneakers at WalMart or has a bright red mohawk, and so on. —Xydexx 09:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree--piddly rumors and hearsay shouldn't be included. The thing is that the conflicts aren't hearsay and actually do have to do with the furry fandom at large. That's why they're significant enough to be relevant to the article. -- Krishva 04:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think if conflicts are included they should be focus on relevant issues rather than repeating outright misinformation from "atrocity tourism" websites, which exist for the sole purpose of creating drama. Xydexx 00:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
They exist for the sole purpose of laughing at drama, not necessarily creating it. Mount rushmore is already there for the tour buses to drive to, after all. Incidentally, as you may have guessed, there ARE such websites linking to this page (because watching a debate has some entertainment value), but there is no Grand Conspiracy to vandalise wiki articles on CYD or whatever. We've got better things to do with our time.. Genghis the gerbil
I think it's disingenuous for people to bait and troll furries and then seriously try to claim furries have a victim complex. But it's also kinda hard to believe folks who put so much time, money, and effort into trolling furries have better things to do with their lives, too. —Xydexx 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with creating new article

Ok, I wanted to elaborate on the term "Hyperfur" and link it to a new article. I created the new article (which you can find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfur) but the link from the Furry article goes to an edit page filled with the text I created.

Why is this? The coding behind the scenes looks right.

Help!

Yours, Sylvan012

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/r/Talk%7EFurry_Archive_1_99a4.html"