Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Notes on that anti-furry movement section someone added 2 The anti-furry section 3 stuff 4 Section warnings 5 Enough Already. 6 Deleting of entire sections. 7 This article is not NPOV 8 Request for comment 8.1 RfC issues 8.2 RfC Response 9 Anime/Furry Parallel 10 Making stuff up isn't valid criticism. 10.1 On parody vs. criticism, with examples 11 KDKA Citation 12 Original Research 13 Criticism section 14 One-sided Article?! wtf. 15 Media with anthropomorphic characters in it 16 Fan creation section 17 New pictures 18 CRITICISM! 19 Let's face it,this is not going to be NPOV. 20 "Fursuitsex" text addition 21 Please stop reverting legitimate edits. 22 Furry art and commerce 23 Article protected 24 External links 25 Article Improvement 26 Stalking Cat image

Notes on that anti-furry movement section someone added

First of all, about the section calling people trolls, the fact is that calling someone a troll is most common method of trolling now. Secondly, wikifur does a lot better job dealing with anti-furries (as they call them), try to use their articles "monolithic antifurry conspiracy", anti-furries, or fursecution as examples. DyslexicEditor 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I sort of doubt that encyclopedia dramatica is really out there to be a fursecution group--it just makes fun of anyone it can and I think it likes furries because it gives them material and would be unhappy if there weren't furries as it would lose lots of material. Another thing, it also has furries in admins as you can tell by their animal names like SchmuckyTheCat. Their website even says that user is a furry in their furry article <link to attack site removed> and that article has been protected for years so just saying that furries do run that site partially. DyslexicEditor 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, above poster; I remember reading in an article, though I don't remember which(I'll look it up soon) Shmucky and another saying that they were -NOT- furries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.216.175.151 (talk • contribs) 15:18, October 2, 2006.

The anti-furry section

The section, as it has been created, is not about criticism. It is describing the trolls of the furry community and falsely glorifying them as being somehow more significant than the trolls of any other community. I have attempted to paint them in as neutral and non-condemning a light as possible. However, dancing around the idea that a troll is for some reason not a troll just because the people being attacked are furries is not impartial - let alone factual. The link to the troll page is there in accordance with the Wikipedia tradition of linking to relevant pages. The troll page is the Wikipedia entry on this type of activity. The link is not there to be impartial or condemning. It is simply an explanation of the individuals you have created this section to describe. If you are not willing to describe these individuals honestly and in an impartial manner, I suggest you remove the section entirely. Furries are an internet community. The fact that any internet community has trolls is a given assumption. There is no impartial reason for pointing out that the furry community also has trolls and trying to falsely justify it by calling them something other than trolls. Furthermore, an actual criticism section would be redundant, since other sections have already described the aspects of the furry community that are the focus of criticism. Dr. Righteous 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't explain why you're reverting every edit I make, even when I fix redundant words, so stop doing it! DyslexicEditor 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If your edits are reverted, it is because they are incorrect, not impartial, or irrelevant to the subject. That is the way of Wikipedia. Dr. Righteous 13:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up, they claim that about you. Edits also get reverted when they're correct, impartial, and relevant by someone who is POV-pushing, as others accuse you of. Scroll up. DyslexicEditor 13:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask whether "one group of people have made fun of another group of people" is really noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic work (WP:NN). That doesn't strike me as a true criticism of the group as much as simple, outright mockery. Also, the citations supplied for Something Awful, Portal of Evil, and Encyclopedia Dramatica are simply links to the websites themselves and do not indicate any relevant material at all. The mere existence of these websites is not a criticism of furry fandom in any way. Furthermore, the first two paragraphs do not include any sort of reference while referring to a seemingly unverifiable "anti-furry movement" (which concept has under 20 hits on Google, a full third of which are to Wikipedia) and makes unsourced generalizations using "weasel words" (WP:WEASEL). Because there is currently discussion regarding these edits, I'm not going to simply revert, but I am going to flag the section based on these observations. --Dajagr 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

stuff

Dr. Righteous when you started editing the fursecution vandal stopped. Dr. Righteous created an account purely to make edits on this article that others disageed with. I believe Dr. Righteous is the fursecution vandal. DyslexicEditor 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also he does 3RR violations [1] [2] [3] [4] DyslexicEditor 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed on his user contibutions list that Dr. Righteous has so far only made edits on the furry fandom article, and no other. Is that an indication that he is the fursection vandal? ISD 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some anon vandalism while Dr. Righteous was editing, not that this says anything anyways. Even if we assume that he is the same guy (and I don't believe that), Dr. Righteous makes good edits. For the 3RR, I left a notice on his talk page that he shouldn't do this. He started discussing things here, so let's hope you guys don't start/continue an edit war over this. --Conti|✉ 14:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I considered the possibility that Dr. Righteous might have been a a new account belonging to Perri Rhoades. But whatever, maybe they aren't. Like Conti said, some of his edits have been good, although he could ease up on the POV-pushing. - 81.179.104.113 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I The Fursecution Vandal? I’ll just let you wonder about that.

I was not aware of the 3 reversions rule. This will not happen again. If DyslexicEditor starts another edit war, I will put an impartiality warning on the section and let it go at that.

As for my so called POV pushing, I’d like to see some citations in this section as well. I’m inclined to think the entire section is blatant POV. You have yet to present any verification that there is any difference between an anti-furry and a run of the mill internet troll. Why do you not cite the manifestos from these so called anti-furry groups? Where are the citations as to their agendas? Where have you cited the outline of their plan of action? And, most importantly, what does this section accomplish that is not already accomplished in the section about Burned Fur, which does have such citations?

Since this section has no citations to support it, it must be at the very least personal research. As such, it should have been deleted, rather than edited. And you’ve wearied me of being patient with it. From now on I will take appropriate action against any POV that is not supported with a citation. Dr. Righteous 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy, folks. Some of Dr. Righteous's changes have had some POV issues in being negative towards the "trolls," from what I've seen, but I don't think that means we need to start accusing him of things. His additions have been relatively neutral, and with some polishing aren't a big deal. Let's not go into attack-dog mode. Discussion, not fighting, right? Tony Fox (speak) 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You could just say "no, I'm not". (Unless you are, of course. Lying would be wrong. :-) GreenReaper 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Section warnings

I have put warnings on the Criticism and Furvert sections. These do not cite their sources and seem to be unverifiable. These are at the very least personal research, at worst complete fantasy. They should be either verified with citations or deleted entirely. Dr. Righteous 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at furvert earlier and it seems long for its subject, but I could not find anything to remove. The criticism/anti-furry section, I think it might need a better title than those two--I don't know if fursecution works. One thing I'd say is that the whole section is mostly just an internet version of the media sensationalism. I don't know if livejournals, forums, and the like are notable enough for wikipedia. Sometimes articles have people that don't even think wikis and websites are notable--like Daniel Brandt is filled with editors who refuse even a two word mention that Brandt who doesn't like wiki articles on him and fought to get rid of his thing on wikipedia now his articles on other wikis now and I think this is very notable but the editors are all claiming websites and wikis aren't. But I digress. So... the easiest thing is that there are four websites listed with articles in the section. I assume those are notable. Now Something Awful, Portal of evil, and Encyclopedia Dramatica are semi-tabloids whereas Crush! Yiff! Destroy! is more of a criticism and Crush! Yiff! Destroy! has a large number of furries running its site while Encyclopedia Dramatica says at least one of its administrators is a furry (it may be only one) and this differentiates them between Something Awful and POE as well as being something WP:Verifiable. I personally would like a good source (like a newspaper) for fursecution and furbashing; there used to be a fursecution article once. For the blogs (including LiveJournal) and forums, I don't know if those are even notable. Also, are furry printed magazines notable? This would help. This made furvert a passable term by the Amateur Press Association / Furversion printing. DyslexicEditor 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title to "internet critcisms" if no one minds, I think internet should stay there until there's something IRL in there. DyslexicEditor 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All I know about the furvert section is that it used to be a seperate article, and it was merged with the furry fandom article. Sadly, I don't know of the sources that they get their information from. ISD 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think this section deals largely with the ridicule of furries that seems to be fairly common in certain parts of the Internet and therefore worthy of mention in the article, rather than about individuals or groups that take serious issue with furries. Perhaps the section should titled and worded to that end rather than attempting to find serious and genuine criticism, which is probably non-existant for the most part. - 81.179.83.230 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate. Both sections should go if no citations can be provided to support them. I have been looking for such citations, but have not found any that could be used. Thus I’m of the opinion that these sections are based on myth, hearsay, personal opinion and personal research. They don’t really add anything to the overall article anyway. Dr. Righteous 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I disagree completely. Furvert was even it's own article before it got merged so obviously it's notable enough to be included. And surely it's obvious that furries get a lot of flak from places like SomethingAwful and whatnot. I'm not even sure what you mean by lack of citations for the Internet criticism section, surely mention of the sites and groups that target the fandom is evidence alone that this isn't merely hearsay or personal opinion. To be honest, your edit history and comments make it seem as though you have an agenda here. - 81.179.83.230 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m talking about the Wikipedia rules which are being flagrantly disregarded here. None of the linked sites qualify as reputable sources for anything. No citations means the work is original research. The fact that something once had its own page makes it no less original research. Need I remind you? “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.” What you think should be included means nothing. It must have reliable verification.

I tend to agree with the item DyslexicEditor linked to my talk page. It suggests that there is no unusual persecution of furries. They merely have trolls like everyone else and are hypersensitive about it. Therefore, the section on furry trolling is lending factual weight to an internet legend. Where is the evidence that furries are anymore persecuted than anime fans? Show this evidence, or admit that there is a huge chunk of original research in this article.

And stop trying to defuse this matter by claiming I have an agenda. My agenda is to see this article conform to the rules, which should be the agenda of everyone here. Dr. Righteous 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. If proper citations can't be found for this information it will be removed. The burden is on the editor who wants to keep the material to find it. Saying "It should be kept" without providing the citation is pointless. Neither policy, guideline, or editor concensus can trump WP:V. --Crossmr 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm aware of Wikipedia policy, but if something is probably/possibly notable but doesn't have citations, the course of action would be to look for sources first, rather than ruthlessly deleting everything from the article (as has been done). A simple search for the term "furvert" with Google returns about 13,100 results, and although the amount of results isn't directly related to veribility, I briefly looked at some of the results and I'm fairly confident that you could find some reliable sources amongst them (or as reliable as is possible for a reasonably esoteric article such as this). I was quickly able to find two so far, which I've added, if editors still don't believe this is adequate why don't they try searching for others rather than simply deleting large parts of the article? What's happening is that individuals here are letting personal opinion get in the way of being neutral, reverting any editing to the article that they personally dislike, and accusing those making them of being trolls or vandals (although this page does seem to get it's fair share of vandalism). The emotional responses and outbursts on this talk page are further evidence of this. - 81.178.225.214 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V The burden lies with the person who wants the material kept. If someone requests a citation and its not provided in a reasonable amount of time they can freely remove it. If they don't want the material kept, its not their job to find the citation for you. --Crossmr 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to find citations for me, not least because I didn't add the information in the first place. Most of the information in question was added by Dr. Righteous, not that it's terribly important. The fact is that where requests for citations were made, they were provided fairly quickly, but an editor took it upon themselves to delete entire sections anyway for unrelated reasons without requesting citations or really giving a legitimate reason for doing so. - 81.178.225.214 04:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Any unsourced opinions, facts, theories, etc can be removed by any editor at any time. They don't have to leave a cite tag if they don't want to. However any editor can re-add that information unless its been questioned. If the material has been questioned, it will likely continually be removed until such a time that a proper citation is provided. Inflammatory material is often quicker removed than non-inflammatory material because of the propensity for vandalism, PoV pushing, and people using wikipedia as a soapbox.--Crossmr 04:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of Wikipedia policy. However this was the decision of one editor, there was no consensus and no justification was given; I'd suggest you have a closer look at the edit history and the information itself. From what I can tell the sections removed did not qualify as unsourced opinions, facts, or theories. - 81.178.225.214 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough Already.

Okay, I think we've been patient enough with all the recent vandalism going on and the article at this point goes way beyond the scope of what furry fandom is about. I'm sure folks are having a good laugh at our expense, but as I've said before I'd like to see Wikipedia remain a source of useful information.

Unfortunately, I don't have the copious free time these guys do. I, y'know, work for a living, so I'll clearly always lose in a battle against, say, unemployed Encyclopaedia Dramatica users who sit huddled in their dark, cramped basements smashing away on their keyboards making other people's lives miserable instead of improving their own.

In the meantime, I'm trimming back the garbage folks have been adding to this article because they think singling out furries for their puerile little games is funny. I don't see the articles on anime or science fiction putting up with this nonsense, and neither should we. Heck, the Something Awful article doesn't even mention how they told William Freund where to buy ammo before he went on a shooting spree and killed himself last year. I dunno, maybe there should be.

Personally, I'd be happy if this made the recreational harassment community finally take a good hard look at themselves and take the opportunity to find a new hobby and actually do something constructive with their lives.

I'm totally serious here. I know how they think being nice to people is lame and their cynical hipster friends will probably disown them for it, but I think they'll ultimately find the grass is greener over on this side and I promise I won't laugh at them if they gave it a try. -=)—Xydexx 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which I support and I realize you're frustrated, just watch the civility and keep it to discussing the content. Don't sink to their level. --Crossmr 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to do. One would think after the John Seigenthaler, Sr. controversy Wikipedia would've found a better way to deal with vandalism of pages other than having editors waste time in a war of attrition with folks who have nothing to lose by making editors waste their time. It's beyond frustrating. —Xydexx 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just apply the rules and policies. Editors who constantly make edits that violate rules and policies, and go against concensus can and will be blocked.--Crossmr 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else starting to see some interesting comparisons in edit patterns between these IPs and our recently joined furry-article-specific editors? Tony Fox (speak) 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

could you provide some links? I just saw this on Noticeboard tonight and came over. --Crossmr 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting of entire sections.

Crossmr, I explained already that citations were given where they were requested and that one editor decided to delete the sections regardless, or had other issues with the sections but failed to ask for citations or changed to what they had problems with as is due process. This is borderline vandalism, you can't excuse it by claiming wp:v is being violated where it is not. And as aside this is not my own contributions either, I'm merely restoring the work of other Wikipedians, so the burden of providing sources is actually on them and by looking through the edit history they seem to have done just that. Can we please now agree to restore these sections which actually should not have been removed in the first place? - 81.178.225.214 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Other wikis can't be used as citiations, so yes WP:V is being violated. Its a non-negotiable policy. The other information didn't contain a source and until a source is provided it can't be re-added because its disputed for lack of source. Re-adding content in the middle of a dispute without source is vandalism. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet the relevant part: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources--Crossmr 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that particular edit you mentioned ("furvert") and you'll notice I didn't revert it when reinstating the rest of the deleted sections. What exactly do you mean by "the other information [that] didn't contain a source"? The sections in question ("Internet criticisms" and "erotic content controversy") had multiple citations and more were added after requests were made. Which makes your accusation of re-adding content during a discussion without a source moot - as sources were included, and actually I didn't realise a discussion was taking place at the point of editing. And again, if you'll check the edit history, the reasons given for the deletion were "Non-encyclopedic, non-notable material deleted" [5], there was no mention of a lack of a source. - 81.178.225.214 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That addresses the two additions here [6]. In this addition [7] nothing is sourced. The one external link is an example, and not a source for any information. There isn't even a source to justify the claim made about that page. In this re-addition [8] we have first paragraph, no citation, external link is an example, second paragraph is an archived copy of a tripod page, this is not a reliable source.The 2nd paragraph cites two googlegroup links which are not usable for citation, this link [9] provides no usable information, the last paragraph cites a livejournal community, which isn't usable as a source. Nothing in any of that re-added material contains a credible source per the guidelines. Most of the external links are "see also" or not provided as a source for any of the information in the content.--Crossmr 05:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is also another problem with the material. One its not sourced, two some of it doens't seem particularly notable 3 or 4 paragraphs on a group that at its height contained 57 members out of a large online community? That's not notable and not encyclopedic. WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. While a given topic may be notable, not every piece of trivia and information ever recorded about that topic is necessarily notable.--Crossmr 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On a new note, wouldn't the time and effort spent pedantically debating the lack of sources and who's responsibility it is to add them be better utilised by simply improving the article, adding sources or requests for citations and such? - 81.178.225.214 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think adding sources and tracking down citations for material which is non-notable and non-encyclopedic in the first place is a good use of editors' time. —Xydexx 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

If someone had no idea what furries were, and this article was their sole reference, they would think that the furry "fandom" had no sexual connotations at all whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is the case. As I have mentioned several times, a google image search for furry art results in mostly explicit images. How is it possible that something supposedly so benign as furry art be almost composed of pictures of large breasted cheetahs and huge-penised horses? This article is in serious need of a rewrite. The furries are trying to hide the truth about their disgusting fetish from the world by disguising it as a "lifestyle". We all know better. 68.69.194.125 05:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

that's right, and girls exist solely to be subjects of pornography [10] and boys purely for pedophiles [11]. You have no point here and its obvious from your tone you're trying to push PoV. --Crossmr 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there are definitely POV editors from the other side of the debate trying to whitewash the article also. I think a lot of the problem is due to redirecting "furry" and "furries" here, when it's actually a much broader term and cover a variety of activities that's impossible to agree on. Personally I think it would make more sense to have a "furries" article and then include the furry fandom as a major section of than article, which would also allow for including fursuiters, plushophiles and the like without tarnishing or offending the fandom by erroneously accusing them of such activities. - 81.178.225.214 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

and as long as the material can be properly cited and written. I have no issue with that. But the citations have to credible and no opinions and theories can be put forth without them. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth, again per WP:V--Crossmr 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You can only interpret these rules so rigidly when dealing with more obscure or esoteric articles such as this. For example you criticised the inclusion of a LiveJournal as a source, when the source was simply there as evidence that the LiveJournal community existed. It's cases like this that WP:Ignore_all_rules is for. - 81.178.225.214 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules cannot be applied to WP:V. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Nothing can ignore WP:V. And yes, Livejournal can be provided as "see also" or "this community can be found here". But that is all it can be used for. That doesn't support the rest of the information provided about the group. You can't just cite one piece of it, then write whatever you want after that because you have one source for one piece of information.--Crossmr 05:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't use the group itself as a citation for information regarding that group? That's a primary source - you can't get any more verifiable. - 81.178.225.214 05:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Its not a primary source per wikipedia guidelines. If you walked into Bill Gates' office and he told you tommorrow he was selling Microsoft to Steve Jobs for $5 and a hand shake, you couldn't add the information to wikipedia, even though it came from the horse's mouth. The information has to come from credible sources. Thats why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.--Crossmr 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My imagesearch was done with safesearch on and it still brought back explicit images, whereas you had to disable safesearch, which suggest that the whole point of furry art is to give furries something to masturbate to. Also, every edit that is made by a non-furry is instantly reverted by a member of the furry horde, irregardless of whether it is relevant or sourced. This article is completely POV and is written from a pro-furry perspective. There are several opinions stated on this article as facts and many is used instead of some. This article must be rewritten with a NPOV.

Oh, and are you saying that he made the LJ group up and forged the website? Because that's retarded. 68.69.194.125 06:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I said per the policies and guidelines posts made to livejournal cannot be used as a source. I never said that livejournal was forged. --Crossmr 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

and your moderate search returns the same results as no filtering. Try searching with full safe search on and you'll see the difference. There is more nudity in the girl art, than the furry art, again you have no point. --Crossmr 06:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[12] safe on its barely different. Every edit thats being made with non-credible references is currently being reverted. Provide credible sources per guidelines and policies and it will stay. Just because you don't want to provide them doesn't mean the content gets to be added without.--Crossmr 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Until you can show me that the majority of furry art is not explicit, I'm going to go ahead and say that the furry lifestyle revolves around a sexual fetish, something which most people already know. I have provided credible sources and they have been reverted repeatedly. For example, I cited Wikifur's article on bestiality which mentioned that certain furries who practice this are called 'beasties' and the edit gets reverted. All you want to do is make the furry "fandom" look completely innocent and nonsexual, which is completely ridiculous because the sexual aspect of the furry lifestyle, as one user mentioned above, is the most notorious. I feel that not enough attention is shown towards the sexual aspect of the the furry fandom. 68.69.194.125 06:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another wiki cannot be used as a primary or secondary source on wikipedia.--Crossmr 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And why not? Perhaps because they are prone to the same kind of POV pushing that you are doing right now. 68.69.194.125 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

If you're concerned about the POV of the article, 68.69.194.125, I would suggest that you stop adding unsourced material to it. Whether or not there is other unsourced material, adding your own unsourced material does not help the POV or the article in general. If you have a concern about unsourced material, flag it. But don't contribute to the problem. --Dajagr 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that deleting large sections on the premise that there was inadequate citations isn't the right way to go about improving the article. Frankly, it's childish. Yes, you don't have to add requests for citations rather than just delete material, but doing so would probably have prevented this idiotic edit war. To prove my point for example I could go and delete the entire fan creations section under the same pretense - it doesn't include a single citation, and could for all intents and purposes be completely fabricated and original research. I won't of course because it would be absurdly pedantic, as was deleting the other sections rather than simply addressing the specific issues in the first place. - 81.178.225.214 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

and re-adding them when people had to leave without reaching a conclusion to the discussion is just as childish. The content is obviously disputed, and trying to force it back into the article unsourced doesn't make the article better. You're continually violating WP:V if you feel other content needs citation, then either put an unreferenced tag on the page and list the stuff that needs citation here, or put individual requests on the material itself. Other unreferenced material is not a license to continue to add more just becuase you feel it should be there.--Crossmr 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

I hope nobody minds that I added this to WP:RFC/SOC. All of this fighting doesn't look like it's going to resolve itself anytime soon, and I think it might be good to get a fresh, unbiased perspective on the issue. --Pifactorial 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. If someone has any suggestions on how to deal with the chronic vandalism this article tends to attract, that would also be much appreciated. I've brought this issue up before, but it seems we're fighting a losing battle with folks who think it's funny to waste our time. —Xydexx 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, stick to the policies. Eventually they'll be removed, and once a few are removed, they'll get the hint.--Crossmr 06:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits have not violated any policies. 68.69.194.125 06:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

a google search is not a primary or secondary source. You're drawing a conclusion based on something you've done. It violates WP:OR--Crossmr 06:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this before. Who exactly are you referring to there, Xydexx? Yes, this page does get it's share of vandals, but it's not vandalism when someone makes an edit or comment that you disagree with. - 81.178.225.214 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

it is when the content that is continually re-added or pushed is not properly cited.--Crossmr 06:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That hasn't happened in this article until very recently. Xydexx's comments were made a short time ago when there was a general consensus about the direction the article needed to move towards, with the exception of Perri Rhoads, as we can all see Talk:Furry_fandom#Parting_statement. - 81.178.225.214 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

regardless of when it started, its happening now. Its obvious the other IP here tonight is only interested in violating policy and pushing PoV. Rather than continue the discussion they just want to edit war. This type of behaviour doesn't do anything to prove their point or make their case. Citations are required they can make them or don't bother. I can sit here all night.--Crossmr 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with my question to Xydexx though. - 81.178.225.214 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I can see where you might have misinterpreted me, I was referring to this. - 81.178.225.214 06:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And the behaviour the other IP is showing tonight is a type of vandalism, but one a lot of admin won't deal with. They'll call it a content dispute and go do something else. Which leaves users out in the cold when you have someone more interested in pushing pov and breaking policies and guideliness to do so.--Crossmr 07:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you've lost me now. We're discussing two seperate issues. I was simply curious as to what Xydexx was referring to. - 81.178.225.214 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think he's referring to this type of issue. Someone not interested in improving the article, just adding unreferenced PoV and generally wasting everyone's time with it. The material will never stay until its sourced and the constant edit warring accomplishes nothing.--Crossmr 07:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Xydexx did not name specific vandals, yet 68.69.194.125 and 81.178.225.214 came forward to plead not guilty anyway. Coyoty 06:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment (sort of)

I'd like to comment (the article is pretty interesting), but it might be nice if those involved could just lay out the issues (without continuing the argument). Given how much has appeared on this talk page just in the several hours since the C was R'd, I'm not sure reading the whole talk will do much more than just confuse me. SB Johnny 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC issues

(Please just lay them out, don't debate them here! SB Johnny 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Basically it boils down to an individual trying to include criticism that isn't sourced per WP:V. WP:V clearly states that the burden lies on the individual who wants the content included to provide the source, they can't insert the information and put a cite request on it if another editor disagrees with its inclusion. As such an edit war resulted over the content as it was continually inserted into the artilce without any sources. --Crossmr 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was hoping for something more specific. If it's one user, you can lay the "case" out a lot better if it's a user-conduct RfC. SB Johnny 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Two users I assume, at least two different IPs trying to add content that doesn't meet WP:V--Crossmr 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically one editor deleted entire sections of the article [13] without first discussing it. As this article has a history of people deleting content they dislike anyway, I restored the missing sections and asked that any future deletions be discussed first or that requests for citations be added before removal. [14] [15]. Then Crossmr entered the picture, reverted my edits, arguing that editors have no obligation to add requests for citations, can delete anything which is not properly sourced, and that the burden of proof lies with the editor that made the additions (which was not me anyway). This seems to have triggered an edit war with another anonymous IP. I think this approach is unproductive and creating unnecessary conflict between editors, it seems to me that the time and effort spent childishly debating who is responsible for adding citations and reverting each other's edits could be better spent improving the article (for the benefit of disclosure, I'm guilty of one other revert besides the original, as after the discussion halted I put back the content along with citecheck tags, as I thought this could be an adequate compromise for the time being).

I also think there's a case of double standards as Crossmr merely added an unreferenced tag to another section of the article [16], which although I think this is the correct way to go about things, it's odd that they didn't take this approach with the other sections, which actually had at least some references. - 81.178.225.214 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding inflammatory material you know isn't properly sourced with a cite check is not a compromise. You failed to note that I also removed some material from the article that wasn't properly sourced as well that wasn't negative.--Crossmr 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From my PoV (so much for NPoV, eh?), there has been a combination of two things going on, somewhat interwoven around each other: On one hand, there have been a number of very blatantly vandalistic edits on the article lately, most coming from a source using names like "THE FURSECUTION VANDAL," but some coming from usernames designed to look like anonymous IP addresses and possibly anonymous IP addresses as well. On the other hand, around spates of such vandalism, there have been other edits that have been somewhat contentious in nature but not necessarily vandalism; these edits have come from a variety of sources, including various IP addresses (such as 81.178.225.214 [81] and 68.69.194.125 [68]) as well as other participants, including Xydexx, Dr. Righteous, ContiE, and DyslexicEditor. With some people already on edge from the verifiable vandalism, people became quick to suspect any edit supplying material with a negative-sounding tone as further vandalism. (Whether or not it was intended as such is a different matter.) Something attracted the attention of Crossmr, who had theretofore been uninvolved. Crossmr's approach appears to be to flag unsourced material that describes the subject matter in a positive or neutral light as needing references, and remove unsourced material that is more negative or pejorative in nature. Others (particularly the anonymous/IP-addressed users) have objected to this approach and restored some or all of the deleted material, sometimes from older revisions of the page. The result of this has been a large number of edit-revert cycles. In my opinion, 81 may or may not have a favorable opinion of the subject matter but does at least appear to be trying to present things with an even hand, while 68 seems to have more of an axe to grind (quote from above: "the whole point of furry art is to give furries something to masturbate to"). --Dajagr 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for those comments, but it bugs me that certain subjects on wikipedia are not dealed with the same way as others are. There is no reason why the furry fandom article should not have a criticism section. Many of the other sections have many statements needing citations as well, yet noone seems to be deleting those. 68.69.194.125 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has a history of chronic vandalism (usually of the Sneaky variety) from members of websites who attempt to incorporate misinformation into the article because it's "funny" to waste the editors' time fixing it. They claim we're "taking the internet too seriously" and get a big laugh out of it.

My position is that attempts to incorporate misinformation into Wikipedia articles—espcially after the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy—are something we should be wary of. In addition, I would welcome suggestions on what we as a community can do about people who think it's funny to waste our time like this. Standard protocol seems to be to delete vandalism when it occurs, but I'm sure most of us have other things we'd rather be doing. I know I do. —Xydexx 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Like having sex with inflatable animals? [www.xydexx.com/inflatable/animal.htm]68.69.194.125 05:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —Xydexx 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC Response

I agree with 68..., the criticism section is interesting, of interest, and helps put the furry community in some context. (It's also hard to see the section he/she is adding [17] as derogatory to furries... it seems more derogatory towards the critics). Adding ((Fact)) tags does the job a lot better than deleting whole sections (which inevitably leads to edit wars). Wikipedia is not going to be printed tomorrow, so leaving the information in and encouraging contributors to provide citations is not doing any harm: on the contrary, it lays down a path towards a better article. SB Johnny 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately were zero usable sources for the material they were trying to add. While criticism sections do serve purposes on some articles they need to contain proper sources.--Crossmr 13:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I currently feel that outside opinions aren't really wanted here by all sides, I'm unwatching this page. When (or if) this debate gets to a point where the participants find two or more equally acceptable approaches to the article, I'll be happy to offer an opinion (contact me on my talk). Considering the strong feelings on each side, I consider the debates on this talk to be suprisingly civil (and thus admirable), but not yet ready for third-party comments to be useful. SB Johnny 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anime/Furry Parallel

I seriously suggest you take a look at the anime page. Anime is a parallel fandom to furry fandom. It has an actual professional porn industry listed among its subgenres. It produces a great number of porn videos, voiced by professional American porn stars. And much of its porn (or hentai) content could legally be considered child porn.

Furry fandom is a much smaller group that lacks any kind of professional industry. Its output and influence on society are relatively non-existent. Yet you are focusing all your indignation on this smaller fandom that can do little more than produce home made art work. Why ignore the big fish to pick on the little guys?

Actually, why pick on anyone at all? If the anime article sees no need to harp unnecessarily on its hentai subgenre, why should furry fandom harp on its yiff subgenre? Just as with anime, the erotic subgenre is only one aspect of the whole that should be given no more or less attention than the other aspects of the genre. And you will see that the anime article accomplishes this perspective quite nicely.

I would advise, for the benefit of those who are uninitiated to this situation, that you use the anime article as a reference for how this type of fandom is properly described. Actually, this raises some question as to whether there should be a furry fandom article at all. Do we have any other art forms on Wikipedia being described solely by the antics of their fandoms? Or do articles on art forms normally concentrate on what the art form comprises?

Just some things for you to think about. Dr. Righteous 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think anime is very accurate parallel with furry fandom. - 81.178.225.214 06:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not aware of the parallels between anime and furry, I suggest you do some serious research before closing your mind on an opinion. These are two fandoms based on the exact same premise, the appeal of cartoons to adult aged audiences. The only dividing factor between the two is style. Anime is the Japanese perspective on cartooning, furry is the traditional American and European style of cartooning.

During the course of recent decades the two genres have shared the same comic companies, the same artists, and, in some cases, the same titles. You will also find a considerable amount of fans who are interested in both genres.

It is regrettable that individuals like yourself have formed these prejudicial views, and thus do not realize that what you are trying to portray as a predominantly sexual thing is the American tradition of animation and comics, which have always been predominantly furry.

It’s also regrettable that you have missed what should be the main object of your concern in this respect, which is general toon smut. Toon smut effects all cartoons, furry, anime or otherwise. If you wanted to condemn the general sexualizing of cartoons, I might think you had a worthy cause there. But to condemn an entire genre of cartooning with a long and revered history seems more than just a tad unreasonable, wouldn’t you say?

I sympathize entirely that the net is filled with perverts who distribute various forms of smut under various names that might inspire such prejudice. But to say all furry art exists just for furries to jack off to indicates that you have seen nothing of the countless non-sexual furry comic strips that are produced on the net. You have not met the countless furry artists on sites like DA who create nothing but cute innocent furry art. In deed, I’ll wager you haven’t seen hardly anything at all of furry, other than derivative toon smut, which you probably deliberately went looking for.

I suggest that you make more of an effort to familiarize yourself with the quality material the genre produces before jumping to these snap conclusions. I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with anime, before you blithely dismiss the parallels. Dr. Righteous 08:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The premise of anime is not cartoons for adult aged audiences. Anime is a term describing a style of animation, predominantly originating from Japan. Pokémon, for example, is hardly aimed at adult audiences foremost. The dividing factor is not merely style, there are differences is popularity, mainstream appeal, public and media perceptions, etc., and the wider furry lifestyle that is not paralleled (at least to the same extent) in anime. - 81.178.225.214 08:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In America anime is all about selling unreasonably high priced DVD’s to adult fans. Pokemon is to anime fandom what Rescue Rangers is to furry. And you really do need to investigate the otaku lifestyle, Otakukin (otakin,) Cosplay sex, the whole 9 yards. Anything furry has, anime has it in spades. The only difference is with anime it’s all professionally marketed. So you have to pay for it. And otaku pay through the nose to maintain their lifestyle.

It’s really interesting how you think furry is all about sex. While at the same time you think anime isn’t a lifestyle. And then you wonder why you can’t get away with editing Wikipedia just on the basis of what you think. Dr. Righteous 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Read this. http://www.cjas.org/~leng/otaku-p.htm I dare you not to see the direct parallels with the kind of prejudice that has been pushed here against furries. Dr. Righteous 12:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opinion of what anime is; the western world in general tends gets a cherry-picked selection of Japanese animation, and therefore it's understandable that people might have a skewed perception of what it actually consists of (as you do). Pokemon, Dragonball, Cardcaptors, etc. make up a major segment of the market. It's not all Cowboy Bebop, Akira, Ghost in the Shell and the like, these are just some of the most mainstream and highly praised titles available and aren't reflective of the genre as a whole. A lot of anime is low-budget poorly-produced material for lack of a better descriptor, and a lot of it is aimed at children rather than adults. Also, it's interesting that you would believe that I think furry fandom is all about sex when I've said or done nothing to suggest I think any such thing - other than try to prevent article from becoming massively POV and have entire sections deleted needlessy. This is all completely irrelevant. - 81.178.225.214 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what you get for not having a name and responding to a comment that was directed at 68.69.194.125. All this time I thought I was talking to the guy who said furry art is just for furries to jerk off to. You're right. This is a waste of time. Dr. Righteous 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone needs to learn how to count. 68.69.194.125 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Three anonymous IP’s on the board. Three anonymous IP’s. If one of those IP’s should find himself banned. Two anonymous IP’s. Two Wikipedia trolls on the board. Two Wikipedia trolls. If one of those trolls should get him a life. One Wikipedia troll. One S. A. refugee on the board. One S. A. refugee. If that refugee finds himself ignored, one bored S. A. refugee on the board.

I think I count pretty good. End discussion. Dr. Righteous 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I count four (4) rabid members of the furluminati, intent on crushing all opposing points of view, assuming that 1 or more are not simply sockpuppets. 68.69.194.125 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Making stuff up isn't valid criticism.

I have nothing against criticism of furry fandom, I just believe it should be valid criticism. I don't think valid criticism comes from so-called "humor" sites like Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Crush Yiff Destroy, or people who learned everything they know about furries from a fictionalized TV show like CSI. That's like claiming the Weekly World News is a reputable source.

If someone has criticism against the fandom, then their argument should be able to stand on its own merits rather than relying on the LOLZ factor. All citing SA, ED, CYD, et al. does is prove they have been unquestioningly repeating these tired old jokes for so long that they've actually started to believe them. —Xydexx 06:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You make an awesome point. HUMOR is NOT critisism. It's HUMOR. --mboverload@ 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Xydexx, it's not really up to us to decide what is and isn't valid criticism, the fact is that sites like CrushYiffDestroy do exist and specifically target furries; it's POV to deliberately try to ommit it from the article regardless of whether or it can be considered valid criticism. I do think however that trying to describe this as serious criticism in the article probably isn't the best approach, and that it's actually closer to ridicule or satire. I tried to reflect this in with my edits to the content that Dr. Righteous added. The fact that furbashing is a fairly widespread term amongst the fandom and its "critics" is at least partial proof that it does exist or is percieved to exist, and therefore there needs to be some mention in the article. The course of action should be on how to best reflect it and to find and use verifiable sources rather than original research. - 81.178.225.214 06:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. IMHO, adding material to articles for the purpose of ridicule or satire violates Wikipedia's policy on civility and no personal attacks, and should be excluded. —Xydexx 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about adding content for the purpose of ridicule or satire? The purpose of adding content regarding ridicule or satire of the subject matter is necessary where it forms a significant aspect of that subject. This is definitely the case with this particular topic, seeing as there are websites, groups and terms dedicated to it. WP:CIV and WP:NPA are completely irrelevant, and for you to believe that they are relevant either means you are misinterpreting my point and/or misenterpreting what the policies mean. - 81.178.225.214 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to cite the criticism. Saying "xxx believe xxx about xxx and create sites like xxx" is not a cited criticism. The website is shown as an example, and you haven't actually cited the opinion itself.--Crossmr 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

81.178.225.214, you said yourself that the anti-furry sites are not serious criticism. Most are (and even admit to being) deliberate misinformation. Incorporating misinformation into articles the sort of thing Wikipedia should probably avoid after the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Considering the chronic vandalism this article has seen, I think the value of fabricating problems for entertainment purposes and then trying to get them added under the guise of NPOV is dubious at best. This isn't Uncyclopedia.

I also disagree that these are a significant aspect of furry fandom, and maintain this article should focus on what furry fandom actually is, not what furry fandom isn't. If someone has criticism against the fandom, then their argument should be based in real problems, not imaginary ones. —Xydexx 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did you guys ever think about the fact that SA is linked from the wikipedia article? Linking to humor sites is not forbidden. 68.69.194.125 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On parody vs. criticism, with examples

Just a thought -- On the Scientology articles we also have a problem with the question of how to deal with "criticism" from humor sources such as South Park. In that case, the content in question ended up on a separate article; all the hooraw that was posted to Scientology about South Park's "Trapped in the Closet" episode ended up on that article instead of all over the Scientology articles.

It seems dangerous to me to consider parody to be "criticism" in the same sense that a scholarly work would be: scholarly works on a subject that are critical, we use and cite and discuss as sources. In the case of Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky is criticism; "Trapped in the Closet" is parody. Parodies are of vastly less usefulness as sources, and should probably only be mentioned briefly in passing.

Why not treat parodies (or fiction works like CSI) as sources? The point of a parody is to mock and to entertain, not to inform. As such, parodies frequently take vast liberties with the facts. Fiction works will almost always sacrifice accuracy for good drama; that's what fiction is for after all. It simply is not honest with our readers, or in keeping with Wikipedia's goals, to treat parodies at all like we would treat serious criticism. --FOo 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

KDKA Citation

The citation for this piece of information: "Although various articles have linked the furry fandom to sexual fetishes, such as bestiality and plushophilia, some furry fans have stated that they do not participate in or approve of such fetishes, and they protest the portrayal of the fandom as anything but an interest in a certain genre of art" doesn't seem to match up. It doesn't mention anything in regards to that.--Crossmr 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I've moved the KDKA citation to someplace it would be more appropriate. —Xydexx 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we still need an actual citation for this opinion and theory.--Crossmr 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'm thinking the sentence is redundant and could probably be rewritten/merged with the already-referenced first sentence in the first paragraph under media coverage. —Xydexx 04:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

This [18] looks like original research to me. It also looks like the author is just using the word to refer to animals that have fur, not the kind of furry that is being talked about in the article. Is there a credible source that attributes this word usage to whats intended here?--Crossmr 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - the word "furry" does appear in older fiction, but there's no evidence that it's being used in anything besides a purely literal sense. "Furry Folk", as used to refer to animals, doesn't quite cut it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 15:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong and right at the same time. The term "Furry Folk" appears frequently in ancient children's literature and folk culture in reference to anthropomorphic characters. But you need to be a historian to be aware of this. It's not something you're likely to find documentation of, outside of the literature itself. Thus, if the literature itself is not useable as a source, you were quite right to erase this little fact of history from the page. Still, it raises some question as to whether the article should put forward the idea that furries somehow invented the term in the 70's or 80's.

Actually, one might raise the question of how reliable is the Yarf Chronology as a source? It seems to me to be a collection of questionable legends, rather than a professionally inspected document. Who is Yarf, anyway? And if the Yarf Chronology becomes suspect as a source, the entire history section might have to go. Dr. Righteous 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As cited on the Yarf Chronology of Furry Fandom, the information was written by Fred Patten, who has a number of credits to his name for his research and volunteer efforts in science fiction and anime fandoms. --Dajagr 06:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a reputable individual with some credentials. Though more in anime and sci-fi than furry. And hopefully not an example of his best work. It’s a rather shoddy chronology, which is why I question it. Very short on verifiable details when it counts for what this article needs to use it for.

Also, what is the Wikipedia view of fanzines as a reliable source? It seems to me that a fanzine is very much like a personal website. You can write anything you want in it. You can cater to any chosen opinion. And there’s not an extensive review process involved as there might be with a newspaper or similar source. Does a fanzine or a site for a fanzine normally qualify as a reputable source? Dr. Righteous 07:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually not, I think. Unless you are writing about the fanzine. --Conti|✉ 14:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome. This makes the Yarf Chronology a questionable source, as it seems to be only part of a fanzine, rather than a professionally constructed article. Yet it is all we have to go on in terms of something to cite for a furry history section. What then would be the Wikipedia method for dealing with a subject on which nothing had been professionally written which was not almost universally denounced as uninformed, sensationalistic, or accused of mass misquoting?

A fandom is, by its very nature, non-professional. If no one has written anything useful about the fandom who were not fans, how can Wikipedia even begin to have a page on it?

Perhaps it would be best just to have a page on the furry genre, which comes with the assumption that a genre has a fandom. If The Ursa Major Awards count as a professional organization, their criteria for works to be considered could serve as documentation of a genre. This might do until such time as something useful in terms of the fandom has been written in a professional publication.

In the mean time, I would suggest that any furry fandom article that remains on Wikipedia should be kept as short and to the point as possible, as practically nothing about the subject has anything but questionable verification. Dr. Righteous 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fandoms are non-professional, but notable fandoms do get articles written about them. We have cited several news articles about various furry goings on. Since furries have been covered by the news we can be sure they're notable, however we need to try and keep the article based on credible information. The Yarf stuff is a reprint of some content that appeared at a convention. As such if you can find out who prepared the material for the convention it may be usable. It can be used under dubious sources, but you have to be careful when using that, and you can't use a lot of it, attributing 90% of your article to dubios souces as I've seen done goes over board. I'm also not sure if you'd want to attribute something like the history to a dubious source. It can still be included as "further reading" or "see also"--Crossmr 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Here are the lines that need citation, I'm not tagging it all because it would be way over-tagged.

• The anti furry movement is made up of people who hold the furry community up to ridicule or disagree with the fandom in some way we need some citation who makes up the anti-furry movement. You're putting forth an opinion
• Some furries have compared this activity to the hateful persecution of an oppressed minority group, thus it has picked up the terms "fursecution" Who are these some? A citation is required for this opinion, as well as the introduction of the word fursecution.
• Members of the anti-furry movement may come from outside the fandom or they may be disenchanted former members A citation is required for where this members may or may not come from.
• Some may belong to similar fandoms, such as anime, and may pick on furries knowing that furry fans occasionally respond in a heated manner again citation is required for where they come from and their reasons.
• Others may honestly hate the fandom for one reason or another. Alot of things may happen, again a citation is required for these "others" and their opinions.
• Some anti-furries may go behave obnoxiously, playfully, or hatefully with an apparent objective to irritate furry fans and lure them into responding negatively. Some may pick their knows, some may do a lot of things. This entire section is based on weasel words WP:WEASEL. Start citing things.
• Some make negative comments about furry fans on sites or forums same as above
• Websites like Something Awful or Portal of Evil often poke fun at the furry community. Ridiculing also exists on blogs like the Live Journal community Fursecution How often is often? any examples? a source saying they do it twice a week, twice a month, twice a year? Often is subjective and requires a citation, as well as citations for their alleged "fun poking".
• Furries who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the fandom may also create sites such as Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, which hold the foibles of the furry community up to ridicule Again a lot of things may happen, you have citations for all this information I presume? Again constant weaseling.
• They may even join anti-furries in their condemnation of certain aspects of the fandom and laugh along with them at things they also find funny.They may buy ice cream cones. citations for theories are required, otherwise its original research.

48 hours is reasonable limit for this. You've already known its been contested for a couple of days now, if in 48 hours there are no citations it will be removed as original research, or any part that remains unsourced. This includes all currently unsourced material, good or bad. --Crossmr 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you good luck finding citations for all this. I wrote most of it, mainly to soften what I regarded as extreme bias in the original version. I would have preferred to ask that the section be deleted out right, but I knew the trolls… uh, anonymous IP’s wouldn’t let me get away with that. So I tried to make it correspond with things I believed to be either true or reasonably impartial. Then I went out looking for citations to build it up properly. But after two days of searching, I realized that the only citations for any writing on this topic would have to come from message boards, which of course aren’t usable.

Then the reality sank in of what the section was really talking about - common trolls. And the reason you can’t find any citations to suggest this behavior is unique to furry fandom is because it’s not. This is all a complete blow up of the fact that furry fandom has trolls and they get pissed about it, the same as with any other fandom. And, as such, whatever truth there is in it falls into that void of trivia that is too insignificant for a Wikipedia article.

Anyway, I don’t know why you hesitate to get rid of it. I’m the co-author of this mess, and I’m telling you point blank it’s all hearsay and original research. I’m ashamed to have been suckered into working on it, and if I had the option of deleting my own work it would be long gone. Dr. Righteous 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just wait a day or two and then remove this, if no sources for this stuff can be found. Keeping it on the article for a short while is not going to hurt anyone. --Conti|✉ 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I already spent an evening trying to get rid of it, but two IPs insist it remain. So I'm giving it reasonable time to acrue any credible citation per their request if they or no one else provides one it'll be removed. I'm not looking for the citations on my own, its not my job, I have no desire to see the material kept.--Crossmr 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to demand a citation every time someone uses the word occasionally. Like we are going to count every single post someone makes about furries on the SA Forums and then average it? Give me a break. Yah, like the ANTI-FURRY COMMUNITY is going to be a community that discusses sports or something? Saying that the anti-furry community makes fun of furries is obvious. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE CALLED THE ANTI-FURRY COMMUNITY? Oh, and please refrain from personal attacks (eg. calling me a troll). 68.69.194.125 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about personal attacks. I haven't called you a troll. And no its not ridiculous, its required by a non-negotiable policy. You can follow it or not, but the material won't be kept unless the policy is followed. All of the criticism you want to include falls under WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F and cannot be kept without citation.--Crossmr 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to Dr Righteous calling anon ips "Common Trolls". 68.69.194.125 05:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a search of the talk page for the term "Common Trolls" just to verify that I never used the term in reference to anonymous IP's. I only used the term once, and it was in reference to the subject of the criticisms section. I was saying that our continued harping on the unverifiable existence of an anti-furry movement was nothing more than the over glorification of common trolls. There is, in fact, no documentation to suggest furries have any more or less opposition than any other group on the net. They have trolls, big deal. Dr. Righteous 07:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The 4 day deadline has passed. I see no usable citations in the criticism section. As such it will be removed as original research. Re-adding this material without proper citation is considered vandalism. Any attempts to recreate this material without proper discussion here will be treated as such. If you think you have a proper citation for all or part of the material please post it on the talk page and it will be discussed.--Crossmr 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the anti-furry movement part so there is less weasle words.-- User:Inkbottle

There's still a not insignificant number of weasel words in the revision: in some way, many anti-furries, others may, one reason or another, apparent objective, countless. Furthermore, in updating the section, you overwrote a number of cited references without providing any particular reason or justification for doing so. I feel that I should also reiterate that I don't believe that links to the front pages of Something Awful and Portal of Evil really qualify as good citations, since they do not provide actual examples of what you assert. Because of the controversy over the article's content, authors have been producing citations from sources like newspapers in order to back up their claims. Certainly, if there are actually "countless" anti-furries, you should be able to find some established material to cite in this manner to support what you're writing. It's not that you need to enumerate every single reason why someone might have a problem with furry fandom, but the fact that people on a couple of websites that make fun of numerous different topics happen to also make fun of furry fandom strikes me as, at best, very weak material. What are the specific criticisms? Does it all boil down to "a few people like to pick on them because some of them generate drama as a result"? Are such kindergarten antics really noteworthy? If you want to create a Criticisms section, it would behoove you to find some specific, citable criticisms, where the citations demonstrate what you assert. --Dajagr 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed more weasel words, and clarified my sources a little. Please tell me what else I need to do. And do you really think there is going to be newspaper articles on anti-furries? It seems like I am damned if I do and dammed if I don't. If I remove that section, the article is biased, but if I leave it in, the article is inaccurate.-- User:Inkbottle

The article is not bias. Please reread WP:NPOV as there seems to be some misunderstanding that it means that all view points should be presented equally and fairly. Only significantly credible viewpoints should be represented and not to an undue amount. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If there are no credible citations that means its not included. Including it would actually be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V.--Crossmr 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I understand now. Still, that seems to cover only negative bias. Either way, I will leave the section off there until I can find better sources. -- Inkbottle

It covers positive uncited bias, too. If someone wrote in, "Furries are friendly people who help make the world a better place by spreading love and happiness," or "Furries embrace their animal sides, which are pure and uncorrupted by human society," it would be reverted, too. There are many furries who believe those statements, but so far, furries with positive bias have usually shown self-restraint from pushing their bias here. So, mostly it's just negative uncited bias that has had to be removed. -kotra 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One-sided Article?! wtf.

I would seriously appreciate it if this Article would be LESS one-sided and had a more critical approach towards the furry community - the current approach seems to be written by furries exclusively, making it look far to one-sided rather then inspirated by an objective point of view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.190.121 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 July 2006

I find the article more neutral, If you wanted a critisism there already is one within the article. By the way adding WTF to the title makes your post sound very unintelligent... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.10.98 (talk • contribs) .

It would also be interesting if more than anonymous IPs showed up to make that claim. We can't write about what isn't sourced properly.--Crossmr 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also: did you miss the Criticisms section? It's pretty new, so it still has some issues to work out (as you can see by the tags on it), but it's definately there. As for the rest of the article, speaking as someone who is familiar with the furry fandom, but isn't a furry, it looks pretty objective to me. All of the information is factual and unbiased. Notice there is nothing that says furry is good in any way.

Think of it this way: An article can be NPOV two ways. 1, by being completely factual and objective, with no judgements or opinions, negative or positive. Or, 2, by presenting all judgements and opinions, positive and negative, equally, letting people make an informed decision for themselves. If you provide criticisms, you have to be able to provide counter-criticisms. -kotra 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section is scheduled for removal tommorrow unless I start seeing some citation. Its basically unfounded material provided by anonymous IPs who don't want to let it die, but won't provide proper citation. Its original research, and they will have had 4 days to find citations for it as of tommorrow.--Crossmr 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added citations but for some reason they were taken off. Care to tell me why? 68.69.194.125 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no usable citations there. This is your last edit [19] and there is nothing cited there. There are a couple of external links, but no actual citations. Read WP:CITE on how to properly source things, as a heads up, livejournal and other wikis, including encyclopedia dramatica are unusable for citation, as are any forum postings from Something awful or any other site.--Crossmr 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for in terms of citations? It seems to me that you simply want to delete the criticism section, as you show no interest in improving it, instead deleting it every so often. Please make constructive edits and do not remove sections that are worthy of inclusion, however flawed you think they are. 68.69.194.125 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here are some statements that need citation too. How about I delete the entire section they are contained in?

"Over the next several years, a gradually increasing number of “furry fans” developed fanzines and eventually began to have gatherings at house parties. By 1987 enough interest had been generated for the first furry convention."

"Although various articles have linked the furry fandom to sexual fetishes, such as bestiality and plushophilia, some furry fans have stated that they do not participate in or approve of such fetishes, and they protest the portrayal of the fandom as anything but an interest in a certain genre of art.[citation needed] They do not think of furry fandom as being any different from other fandoms, such as anime, which also have erotic sub-genres and sexually oriented role play, but are not judged as a whole because of them."

"Though the sexual controversy tends to capture the greatest amount of attention, furry entertainment of a non-sexual nature that is suitable for all audiences continues to be produced in great abundance by the fandom."

68.69.194.125 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

and if you notice some of them have citation tags on them. As I stated above, anything unsourced I'll removed in the clean up tommorrow. Perhaps you should try reading the existing talk as I clearly explained the citations that were required right above Talk:Furry_fandom#Criticism_section Anytime you make an opinion like "Some people believe this, or somepeople will do this" you requirea credible source for that opinion, an article in a credible book, magazine, online newspaper, etc, etc. The key is that it has to be a credible source. Without a citation its just your opinion what some people will do and that is original research which there is a strict policy against. You've been given 4 days to find citation for the material which is longer than is normally given to original research.--Crossmr 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I give you 4 days to find citations for the above quotations, or else I delete them. Also, the section does not qualify as original research. It is based on observation. As for citations, noone has to quantify the exact amount of times per month someone makes fun of furries on the SA forum. The word occasionally or frequently is enough. And are you seriously suggesting that the term anti-furry community is not self-explanatory? They are ANTI-FURRY. You don't need citations for that. If we held up every single article to your impossible standards, there would be none (including the furry fandom article). 68.69.194.125 05:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a member of Something Awful, but it's my understanding that making fun of furries is considered "old meme" these days and hardly anyone there does it anymore. —Xydexx 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have observed a great slowing down of activity on Live Journal furry troll communities lately. Actually, the most venomous community, Furbashing101, was completely deleted. And Fursecution is rather starved for action these days. The number of posters is relatively small. And half of those are furries who are only there to taunt the trolls. It would not surprise me at all if sites like SA and POE were finding bigger fish to fry these days. Dr. Righteous 15:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

and based on your observation IS original research. You're putting for information based on your observation. --Crossmr 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that things that are common knowledge do not need citations. Would you need citations for a statement saying the KKK hates blacks? Not to mention, the Something Awful Forums article has a whole section discussing anti-furryism within the forums. Saying that I must know the specific number of SA Forum posts that make fun of furries is absurd. 68.69.194.125 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes they do - or rather, you should provide the evidence backing up the specific actions that imply that the KKK hate black people. "Common knowledge" among a small group does not translate to common knowledge across the whole world of Wikipedia readers - and even if it did, it might not be the case ten years in the future, or a hundred. We've had enough complaints that furry fans cite common knowledge as a refutation to all the CSI coverage; well, if we don't get to use it as an excuse, nor should you. :-)

If there is a section discussing anti-furryism on Something Awful Forums, you should provide it as a reference for that section on that article. It may also be appropriate to add it here as a reference to back up an example of anti-furryism on forums in general. Personally, I would just point to the appropriate section in the Wikipedia article. It is more likely to be regularly updated there. GreenReaper 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Media with anthropomorphic characters in it

Is it nessessary here?Why not put it into the article on Anthropomorphicism?(I hate writing that word"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.145 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 July 2006

Interesting philosophical question there. One might even query if furry fandom is indeed a reality. Perhaps it is really the anthropomorphism fandom and is worth no more than a footnote at the bottom of the anthropomorphism page. Then again, perhaps it is just an exaggeration of funny animal fandom, and should be merged with the funny animal page.

It seems that Wikipedia has separate articles for anime and anime fandom, as well as Star Trek and Star Trek fandom. But furry only has a page for its fandom. Perhaps the more relevant question is, which Wikipedia page represents the object of furry fandom? Does Wikipedia even acknowledge furry as an art form? And if there’s no art form, how can there be a fandom?

The problem here is that you are dealing with a relatively new kind of cultural phenomenon. Even those here who are furries don’t completely understand it. To define it properly, you need to put it under a microscope and study it. But that is not the nature of Wikipedia. The nature of Wikipedia is to pit people with differing limited opinions against each other. It’s a no win situation that will never result in any kind of truth remaining on the page, if it ever manages to get there in the first place.

Sadly, none of you even have the option of researching it, for nothing you discover on your own can be contributed to the article. Thus you must continually reference flawed documents written by people who probably know less about the subject than you do. And the more you quote these misbegotten sensationalistic portrayals, the more the truth becomes obscured.

I fear the situation is hopeless. You will never arrive at the truth under these conditions. I give you this page with some reference links to study. http://www.snowcovered.it/furry.html Perhaps if you read more you will at least achieve a greater understanding of this subject that you have in all likelihood been misrepresenting to the world. Dr. Righteous 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most people will trust a mainstream professional magazine/television channel over some furries webpage. Oh, and your name is totally in tune with your attitude. Talk about wearing your heart on your sleeve. 68.69.194.125 05:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you're name says a lot about you, too. Dr. Righteous 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't sink to his level...--Crossmr 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA DyslexicEditor 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And thats pointed at who? What I said certainly wasn't a personal attack and the IP is currently on a long time out for endless personal attacks.--Crossmr 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan creation section

The first two paragraphs need to be rewritten so that they appear more factual and less speculative in what they're saying.--Crossmr 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can probably help out with that eventually. I'm working on tracking down a few articles and references that would probably be very useful. There was actually a significant article written about furry fandom in Comic Buyers Guide a few years back, IIRC. —Xydexx 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be useful if you could get access to it. --Crossmr 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of it myself, but it's buried somewhere in my disorganized multitude of files. I'll keep an eye out for it. —Xydexx 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, as long as we use a proper book citation its usable.--Crossmr 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

Can this be put to any use? --Pifactorial 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

try the fursuit article? seems like it might be appropriate there.--Crossmr 06:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just responding to "Find more high-quality images that represent the fandom" in the todo list. IMO the fursuit picture in this article is pretty ugly, though. --Pifactorial 06:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

oh I thought it was just a general inquiry :) Hrm I'm assuming its from a convention right? Maybe to illustrate the convention or something along those lines. I think fursuitting is covered briefly in the article, in and around ther emight be good too.--Crossmr 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try putting it in and see if anybody's head explodes. --Pifactorial 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice picture of fursuiters. The problem I see is that its position implies that all the people who go to conventions are fursuiters, which is not the case (the previous one was almost as bad in this respect). I believe the actual value is around 15% - perhaps we could find some reference with a measured value and add it in as a note? GreenReaper 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, that same thing actually crossed my mind. Problem is, I don't have any con pictures that really demonstrate the population breakdown. (At Anthrocon 2006 there were 2489 attendees, and 191 fursuiters in the parade. [20]) --Pifactorial 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The only one I have from AC2006 that is remotely near is this one. There are probably better ones out there. GreenReaper 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CRITICISM!

This article SERIOUSLY needs some real criticism of the fandom included. Not just the "oh, yeah, and CSI made fun of us once, but they were wrong!" The way this article is written now reads like a pro-furry website, NOT an objective article on the subject. If you guys wanna be taken seriously, you need to learn to not act like a bunch of pussies who can't take a little criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.154.249 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 July 2006

It had what you would call "real criticism". It was removed - after several days warning - because it failed to actually come from a work that met Wikipedia's reference (along with quite a lot of pro-furry stuff, and was basically what Wikipedia calls "original research" - i.e. "I think this, so I'll write it."

If you guys want to be taken seriously, you need to learn to reference your work and, heck, maybe get accounts and do some contribution elsewhere as well as bashin' on the furries. It would probably help if you learnt that most talk pages were added at the bottom rather than the top, too. :-)

Amazingly enough, it's not actually Wikipedia's job to be critical of the fandom. It can document such criticism, but I would suggest that there are better ways to do that than have a "criticism" section that is a magnet for people to add whatever they think about the fandom - see Wikipedia:Criticism for some ideas. Every time I see a "Criticism" section, in any article, I think "Hey, it's POV time". GreenReaper 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few people who have vociferously insisted on the need for a Criticism section in this article, but, so far, none of them has managed to come up with properly cited content that backs up that need. The content and quality of the Criticism sections that have been added have seemed to indicate a couple of people with some sort of grudge more so than any serious criticism of furry fandom in general. The most recent one included reference to a nebulous "anti furry movement" with no indication of even approximate numbers, or organization, or anything else that would point to an actual movement. It used Weasel Words extensively ("in some way," "some furries," "may come from...or may be," "some may belong...and may pick on," "others may honestly...," "some anti-furries may," "some make negative comments," "some have considered," "many of their administrators," etc.). Half of the citations, where they existed at all, were vague and did not point to actual content backing up the claims; instead, they linked to websites and made claims about content somewhere on that website without showing the content in question; the remainder were to a LiveJournal community that exists primarily for exaggerated mockery (and WP:V states that "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources) and to a website that did not subscribe to any specific criticisms, per se, but exists to (in its creator's words) "document the more outstandingly bizarre aspects of the furry fandom...with no particular agenda or program in mind."[21]

If there is a body of material out that actually documents specific criticisms of furry fandom, then that can be used to write a well-researched Criticism section. But if the best that can be mustered is a section full of weasel words and original research, with citations that largely indicate that "there are people who make fun of a lot of different things and they happen to include furry fandom on that list," then it's doubtful that the article "SERIOUSLY" needs this section. --Dajagr 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that if someone has criticism against the fandom, then their argument should be able to stand on its own merits rather than relying on the LOLZ factor. Making stuff up isn't criticism—it's like standing next to Mount Rushmore and arguing about the size of Alexander Hamilton's forehead. (In other words: Alexander Hamilton isn't on Mount Rushmore; such "criticism" is beyond the scope and definition of the article.) —Xydexx 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it,this is not going to be NPOV.

The closest we can get to it is to make 2 articles,one very biased for furries,and one against them,and hope they balence each other out. User:Inkbottle

Welcome to Wikinfo. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I consider myself a furry and even I notice this article is NPOV to all hell (bias leaning in favor of furries). Criticism and negative reactions are strongly required on this article as well as a listing of subgenres and the like. Some editors are going to have an obvious bias towards lumping fursuiters and yiffy furries in with "regular" furries, so it may also require a "subgenres" section. I'd edit myself, but my account isn't old enough to be able to disregard the semi-protect status the page is on. - Luminar

As pointed out below. WP:NPOV does not require all sides be represented equally.--Crossmr 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Luminar, I'm not sure that dividing the furry fandom into categories and subgenres would be entirely accurate. It's not like yiffy furries and fursuiters are all that distinct from the "regular" furries. There are many gray areas. I'm not saying all furries are yiffy or fursuiters; the truth is closer to the opposite, but it would be hard to pin down divisions since furry is such an inclusive subculture (despite the efforts of the Burned Furs et al).

Also, note that there are already Fursuit and Yiff articles, as well as the "Sex and furry fandom" section, so the subjects are already pretty much covered. -kotra 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. well, it was more of a means of distinguishing yiff/fursuit from "plain" furries, since the prevalent view everyone seems to take is that all furries are pornographic, which is far from the truth. Though I often do wonder if that's just the bandwagon majority not putting much thought into it.. well, as it stands, the article still needs some form of criticism. I'd do it myself but given there's apparently something of an edit war going on, i'm not sure it will have much of an effect. - Luminar 08:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way you all seem to lump yiff and fursuiting together like that. Fursuiting is not a sexual fetish, any more than furry in general is. - ∅ (∅), 11:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that they were grouped in such a fashion for being two examples of interests that occur as subsets of furry fandom and are often erroneously considered completely pervasive or definining. I don't think that they were intended to be linked by content. --Dajagr 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dajagr is correct. I wasn't lumping them together, and I'm pretty sure Luminar wasn't, either. I was using them as examples of subsets of the furry fandom that people often consider to be representative of all furries. Sorry for the confusion. -kotra 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fursuitsex" text addition

While adding the various links to other sites, 81.178.86.15 also added this little snippet of text: Pornographic material focusing on intercourse whilst participants wear fursuits also exists. Aside from fursuitsex.com, (which, despite being a members-only pay site, keep getting cited and added to this article), is there actually any notable body of material in this sub-genre—i.e., enough to actually warrant note? (I honestly don't know, myself; it's definitely not my cuppa.) --Dajagr 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's obviously worth mentioning, especially considering there's Sex and furry fandom subsection specifically for this kind of thing. - 81.178.86.15 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, though—you didn't answer the question. I asked whether there was a notable body of material in the sub-genre. Whether or not the act occurs often enough to be notable is a different question from whether material is produced of it. The former could probably actually be supported by citations. I'm questioning the latter. --Dajagr 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's non-notable at best, and generally beyond the scope and definition of the article. The website was set up by some folks just trying to make a few bucks from the CSI episode. Not really a credible reference, IMHO. —Xydexx 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As well, one appears to be a highly oppinionated blog which I'd question the credibility of, and the other doesn't refer to "furry" at all in the whole text.--Crossmr 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know over a dozen people who have built fursuits. When questioned about 'fursuit sex' they all say the same thing. They would never damage/ruin/stain their $500-$3000 costume they spent months perfecting. Perimus 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Crushyiffdestroy articles? Also maybe the many furry imageboards? There's beastpaint.com. I prefer maybe img.7chan.org/fur/ as a source. Anomo 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. Zetawoof^(ζ) 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting legitimate edits.

Can you please stop deleting my additions [22] to the external links section? [23] In future, perhaps you could check my edit history before labelling me a "bad anon", also. The fact of the matter is that the section should contain links to sites displaying a range of views and subject matter. See WP:External_links, "[What should be linked to] On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each", "The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other". It also states "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." which is what I did . And on the matter of fursuit sex not being considered artwork, that is grounds to move it to a section that you feel is more appropriate, not it's removal. This is why I added a POV tag to this article weeks ago (which has since been removed despite the issues not being resolved), it's impossible to try and edit the article to redress the balance without being repeatedly reverted by a small group of POV editors. - 81.178.86.15 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

CrushYiffDestroy and God Hates Furries have been removed multiple times in the past - the consensus is that they don't add anything to the article. More generally, though, POV isn't a good reason to add anti-furry links, because this is not a matter of POV; there is no great controversy on which the existing links are on one side and the links you added are on another. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I'll mention the Jew article - there are no anti-Jewish links in the external links, because there's no controversy there either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they were removed multiple times in the past doesn't really indicate anything, considering this article's history; and the fact that this page is plagued with edit warring would indicate that there's no real consensus either. CrushYiffDestroy states that they have no agenda [24], so to assume they are is merely opinion. Regarding your Judaism analogy, there's actually entire seperate articles dedicated to "anti-Jewish" matter, [25], [26], [27], [28]. Can you explain in further detail why you feel these links add nothing to article (any more than the existing links, in any case)? - 81.178.86.15 04:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But they're not in the actual Jew article.--Crossmr 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Using that analogy we should now have to create a seperate "anti-furry" article (which is ridiculous of course). Subsections are split into their own articles once they become too large to contain in a single article, which makes the point that they're not in the Jew article moot. Not to mention that equating furry fandom and jews is absurd anyway. - 81.178.86.15 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The topic of the Jewish people is much more notable. Given that pretty much all criticism that's been added to the article hasn't been properly sourced it would be rather difficult to make an appropriate article out of it. There probably isn't even enough for a stub. The point that was trying to be made was not all articles need a criticism section at all. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also read WP:NPOV NPOV is not giving equal time to all sides. --Crossmr 05:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument seems to be over these two links:

• furry fandom from Disinfo
• Plush Sex Mini-FAQ from Coyotes.org

The relevant policies and guidelines are probably WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Wikipedia:External links. So what can we say about how the content and links in question measure up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely undue weight, which was why I linked to NPOV in my reasoning. Not to mention the links are dubious at best. One appears to be a random blog post, the other doesn't mention furry at all.--Crossmr 05:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this constitutes undue weight? And when dealing with esoteric subjects sources are always going to seem poor in comparison to ones regarding more general topics. If you were to be as rigorous with other citations as you were with the ones regarding content you dislike you'd find that we wouldn't have an article here at all. - 81.178.86.15 05:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through and removed several pieces of information from both sides of the fence that weren't properly cited. Building an article is not a valid reason to ignore proper citation. There is no valid reason to ignore proper citation.--Crossmr 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there's no valid reason to ignore proper citation. I don't really understand the undue weight argument, Crossmr. Are you saying that ";;Sex and furry fandom" is such a minor part of the fandom subculture that we shouldn't be giving it so much weight in the article? Or is it something else? It seems to me the reliability of the sources themselves is a separate issue from the undue weight question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying part of NPOV requires there be proper citation for the points you're trying to make. Starting with the way its written "Furries may..." furries may do a lot of things. There is no information provided regarding whether this is actually a notable practice in the fandom or not, which falls under undue weight. While it certainly can be said there is plenty of yiff art out there, and obviously a demand for it, there is no evidence provided in those citations saying a significant portion of the furry fandom engages in either of those activities.--Crossmr 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

These are things which are talked about far, far, far more often than they actually occur, largely thanks to people thinking what they saw on a fictitious TV show is a realistic portrayal of the fandom, and the folks with an axe to grind who have no problem letting them think that. —Xydexx 06:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're also running into WP:WEASEL the way its written. I could spend all day writing "Furries may...". Probably most of them would even be true, even just randomly guessing I could probably find a furry or two who does random activity. We need some evidence of notability if we're going to make claims about what furries may or may not do, and it needs to be worded much differently.--Crossmr 06:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I know plenty of furries who are into geocaching and urban exploration, but that doesn't mean those activities have anything to do with furry fandom. —Xydexx 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You realise that the same also applies to your own edits too right? The references you used in the Furry_fandom#Fan_creations sections don't make any mention of furries either. I suppose the rules are different when it's concerning content that doesn't disconcert you or make mention of an aspect of the fandom you would rather have eradicated from the article. And well done to Crossmr in his fair and even-handed treatment of all citations equally - no bias here! - 81.178.86.15 09:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Critter Costuming is a whole book about building fursuits written by a furry fan, and the article on Trace Beaulieu (GoH at Pawpet Megaplex) mentions a guy who dresses up in a raccoon fursuit to entertain at children's hospitals. —Xydexx 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As melodramatic as the "What hypocrisy" summary might be, it does raise a point: Namely, if "it doesn't mention 'furry'" can be used as a standard for deletion in one case[29], then it needs to be able to be applied across the board. Honestly, the Trace Beaulieu article has, at the very best, a tenuous link to furry fandom or the subject that it cites. While it does include a mention of someone dressing up in an animal costume, there's nothing substantial there to link that particular individual to furry fandom per se. Yes, I do see that the person the article was about was once a guest at a furry convention, but that still strikes me as a stretch of a link...and—this may seem nit-picky—but entertaining children at a hospital, while laudable, is not a convention masquerade, dance, or charity fund-raising event (I suppose it could fall under "fun"). The main point is, though, that an earlier link got removed because it "doesn't mention furry at all," and that sort of criterion really should be universally applicable if it's going to be used. --Dajagr 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The article took place at Pawpet Megaplex, though it isn't mentioned by name. No matter, I've found a better reference anyway. —Xydexx 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The lack of mentioning furry wasn't the only reason that information was removed.--Crossmr 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, [[30]] says that MINORITY views do not have to be represented equally. As the furry fandom has a large number of critics, I would certainly not count anti-furrism as a minority viewpoint. 68.69.194.125 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a viewpoint. It's a joke. Furries are funny. That's all those links are. --mboverload@ 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, asserting that furries are funny constitutes an opinion, and therefore a viewpoint. 68.69.194.125 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to represent it, though. We're under no obligation whatsoever to represent every single viewpoint in existence - only the ones that are significantly notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a different idea of a "large number" than we do. The "anti-furry" groups are highly vocal, but rather small. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As we can see here. --Conti|✉ 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that furries assert that the CSI, MTV and Vanity Fair articles/TV Episodes are supposed to show furries in a bad light, it would seem anti-furryism is widespread. 68.69.194.125 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's over. We are never going to include your troll/joke website links. Ever. Have a nice day. --mboverload@ 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "Anti-Furry" brings up 2,190,000 results. And considering that 3 of you responded within a small amount of time, it is highly probably that one or more of you are simply sockpuppets. Another factor in this is that those who edit the furry fandom page will tend to be furries, since this article is of more importance to them than the average person. 68.69.194.125 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, ridicule yourself even more and write in ED about it. :) --Conti|✉ 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Its brings up 3690 [31]. Have a nice day.--Crossmr 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran a few of those sites on External links through Alexa's web ranking

• furry.wikia.com: Between 1% and 2% of wikia.com's 3,246
• arclight.com: 512,882 (may not be relvant to the linked page)
• visi.com: unavailable for a specific page, since it's a general web host
• dmoz.org: 177
• tigerden.com: 1,364,122
• furtopia.org: 119,043 (again, a general [furry] web host, perrirhodes' page is unlikely to be much of that)
• fortunecity.com: generic host
• humantruth.info: 1,402,520
• yerf.com: 258,995
• vclart.com: 33,390
• furaffinity.net: 45,429
• deviantart.com: 191 (not sure how much anthro art is taken up by that, probably not much - it is a generic art host)
• rabbitvalley.com: 175,720
• godhatesfurries.com: 6,487,651
• crushyiffdestroy.com: 2,180,989
• fursuitsex.com: 1,242,204

Of course, 50% of furries use Firefox . . . and Alexa ranking is not the only or even the most significant factor that should be considered. Of the three debated links, I would say that if any, Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, is a significant site due to its original articles which are actually useful at times, and its active forums. God Hates Furries is a blog written by one anonymous person, and it's not been updated in almost a year. Fursuitsex.com is a porn site which happens to be about fursuits (the people who run it seem to have others on different topics), and is about as relevant to the furry fandom as cartoonporn.com would be to Disney. It's more suitable on Fursuit, if anywhere. GreenReaper 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; I only briefly looked at the "original articles" section of Crush Yiff Destroy, but the articles I looked at seemed either to just pick at old controversies (1, 2) or seem to be intended as humor (1, 2, 3 going by its description). Two of the ones I saw might be okay, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough value there, unless you want to pick out good articles individually as citations of specific criticisms. —AySz88\^-^ 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Old controversies and humor are significant parts of furry fandom. :-) Still, I didn't say it was a great choice, just the best of the three on offer. There are better sites. For example, if you wanted a good example of how sex is treated in the furry fandom, I'd suggest Yiffstar. With a 134,139 Alexa rating and the biggest collection of written word furry erotica in the world, it's reach among furry fans is significant, something which I do not think can be said of any of three sites under consideration. GreenReaper 04:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't and there are obviously some more relevant links. While you could say that CYD is low on the list because of certain browser habits, other sites being much higher on the list can't be ignored in terms of relevance. The art section could be trimmed. I haven't checked all links, but I suspect there is some duplication there. Perhaps a non-erotic and an erotic link would be fine. The purpose isn't to be a directory but to show further information. An example of each style would be appropriate.--Crossmr 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest cutting the deviantART link. The art sits are the "big three" and cover the continuum of furry art - I don't think it's right to exclude any of them (Yerf has a lower pagerank, but is the biggest clean art archive, and the only to have significant quality restrictions). Rabbit Valley is the only comic provider that identifies itself as specifically furry, and though Radio Comix publish significant furry material as well it appears to be the more popular. Perhaps there should be a "Commerce" section where it could be with sites like FurBid. GreenReaper 08:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Furry art and commerce

back to the left. If there is significant trade in furry themed art and other pieces of fandom then it might be worth covering.--Crossmr 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people who go to a convention commission one or more conbadge for when they are there, either before or during the convention itself. That's just the tip of the iceberg with respect to artwork though - it comes in all forms, 2D (most media you can think of), 3D (both virtual and real sculptures), the fursuit thing, etc. It's almost all original (either of the artist's or the commissioner's characters), which sets it apart from anime art which (as far as I know) tends to be mostly about coming as close as possible to famous media icons. GreenReaper 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know googling fursona revealed alot of commercial links for online artists who sell stuff, so to me thats an indication that its strong outside of conventions too.--Crossmr 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. While conventions are a big boost for some artists, and probably more so now that there are more and more of them, I'd say that the majority of commerce is done with Paypal and the US Postal Service. Some (few) people like Dark Natasha can make a living off off original commissions and (often framed) limited-edition prints. It can certainly make a respectable second income. GreenReaper 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There also exist Zeta Toys [32]which are dildos designed to resemble animal penises. Maybe we could fit that into the article somewhere? 68.69.194.125 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

In the future please do not edit war - both sides of the debate. Thx! --mboverload@ 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

There are currently way too many links in the article, see Wikipedia:External links. I think sites like DMOZ are a better source to link to various sites within the fandom. I'm not sure which links to remove tho, and as they're getting added back anyways I'm starting a discussion here. Which links should go? --Conti|✉ 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I read over the guidelines and tidied it up a bit. I removed the commerce links because they're not really talked about in the article. Perhaps if we get a good section about people making money off it and various businesses we could add them back in as long as they actually relate to what is written. I removed a couple information links that were present on dmoz, and I removed a couple over-lapping information links and tried to keep one of each kind of information link.--Crossmr 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have to ask why you thought my essay on the history of the genre was so expendable. It's not like you had two of them to choose from. Perri Rhoades 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

http://otakuoftomobiki.livejournal.com/12978.html Perri Rhoades 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Because we already had a chronology of the history? If you think the essay does a better job you're free to replace it, I just thought that as far as history goes we should have 1 covering that aspect. Nothing personal at all.--Crossmr 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the history you saved is the history of the development of The Furry Community. What you tossed out was the history of the genre the fandom is built around. And though it seems tacky to be plugging my own page in a situation like this, there just isn't anywhere else on the net people can go for that information. So, yes, you cut out possibly one of the most vital pieces of information for anyone trying to understand furry fandom, but no, I'm not putting it back in for you. If someone else thinks the history of the genre is important enough to include, they're welcome to link it. But for me to do it seems not quite right. Perri Rhoades 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement

I think we need to refocus our efforts on improving the article. I've had some ideas the past week or so, but work has kept me pretty busy. The sections on Conventions should be rewritten and expanded to include: the first furry convention (Confurence); the growth of furry conventions/gatherings held today; the "Big Three" furry conventions (Anthrocon, Further Confusion, Midwest FurFest), and mentioning the events scheduled at a typical furry convention. Fursuiting and Charity work could easily be broken out into their own sections. I added parades to the list for reasons for fursuiting; I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned considering Rapid T. Rabbit (host of a public access TV show for 20+ years now) always has a group in the Doo Dah Parade in Ocean City, NJ. —Xydexx 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Convention stuff is now covered more fully in furry convention. I think the summary style coverage we have here is sufficient, although it could probably stand some tweaking. Fursuit has (and should have) its own article, too, although it is in need of a complete overhaul. Charity would perhaps be more appropriate in furry convention, although a brief mention here would be good as well, since many thousands of dollars do get raised. GreenReaper 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalking Cat image

I'm not sure if the image is a good idea. Has this guy ever identified himself as a furry lifestyler, or are we just assuming he is one because he wants to be a tiger? I also don't like the Wikipedia trend to often use the most extreme images one can find to illustrate a subject. That guy certainly isn't a typcial example of a lifestyler, so the image might give a wrong impression to the readers. --Conti|✉ 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. The image should be removed unless GR can give a good reason to keep it. The Stalking Cat article doesn't once mention the Fandom. --π! 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard (don't quote me on this) Stalking Cat isn't even a furry fan, he just hangs around with furry fans because they don't give him flak. I understand he's a pretty nice guy, though I must admit I've only said hi to him in passing so haven't really asked him directly. —72.73.29.108 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. I've removed the image for now. -kotra 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed him about it. Will see what he says. He does, however, live with people who appear to be furry fans, and come to furry conventions. I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line between someone like Stalking Cat and a furry lifestyler, given that our current text seems to fit his description.

From the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ:

0) What is alt.lifestyle.furry?
alt.lifestyle.furry (or ALF) is a newsgroup for and about people who relate strongly to animals and/or furries (see definition below) in a way that impacts their personalities and/or way of life.
...
Your lifestyle includes everything you _choose_ to do in your life. It's the behaviors that you use to define your life, the way you choose to conduct yourself in your personal life.
...
. . . You can purr when happy, you can stalk when angry . . .

If he's not representative, then what is a typical example of a lifestyler? GreenReaper 07:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that there is a copy of Anna Meets the Furries Pt. 3 which contains an interview with Cat. I've talked to him myself (briefly) at MFF 2005, and while he wasn't running out there in his whiskers, I think he was at that greymuzzle session, and he certainly seemed to be "one of the gang" (his reason for not being at AC 2006 was apparently lack of funds rather than lack of intent - he "loves furr cons").

To those protesting that Stalking Cat is "not a fan" - well, that may be the case, but the situation we have now is that furry lifestylers have been merged into the article for furry fans, and so they need to be be covered here. Perhaps this is just an example of why that merge is a bad idea. GreenReaper 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't knew whether he was a lifestyler/fan or not, so I asked. That wasn't my main point, tho. He could be a lifestyler, but is he a typical lifestyler? People who read the section will look at the image and think "So that's how a lifestyler looks like", and probably get the impression that you have to look like that to be a lifestyler. That's what I meant with giving a false impression. I just think we shouldn't show the most extreme examples just because we can, the section itself calls body modification in lifestylers "extremely rare". I'd consider a group of lifestylers howling at the moon or someone wearing a tail and/or ears to be a more typical example of a lifestyler, for example. --Conti|✉ 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. Obviously you're not a real lifestyler if you don't want to spend tens of thousands on body modifications. ;-)

Here is what Cat had to say (the entire reply):

ok I am a full on full time furr
I live my totem 24-7 so that would also make me a 24-7 furrsuiter
my connection is mostly spiritual but I am a full on furr.
Cat
 flicks and swishes my tail

So, for the record, this seems to say he considers himself a member of the furry community. I'm not hugely wedded to the picture being there - I agree that if there is only room for one picture, a more general-purpose one would be more appropriate (though I will add a link to the article about him as an example in the line about body modification). Do you happen to know where we might find such a picture? GreenReaper 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what you need to consider here is this. Is this guy the only one you’ve ever heard of having extreme body modification? If so, it could in no way be called common behavior in any respect. Thus the use of the word “Some” is completely inappropriate. It should rather read something like, “One member of the community is known to have had extensive body modification.” But then, if it’s just one guy doing it, doesn’t the whole subject fall under Wikipedia trivia too small of note to be mentioned? I think for body modification to even rate a mention in the lifestyler section, you should be able to point to at least 3 people who have done it. Otherwise I think your just slapping the stigma of one guy’s extremes on a whole group of people.

As for what a picture of a typical lifestyler would be. It would be a picture of an ordinary guy. Unlike with the fandom, lifestyling doesn’t effect visual appearances that much. Lifestyling is more an inner or spiritual thing. Maybe if you could get a picture of an ordinary guy with the ghost of a tiger superimposed you’d have an accurate visual representation. Perri Rhoades 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a stigma? I was under the impression that while some thought it was "bad press" for him to be on TV, some others would do the same if only they had the courage (and the money). Certainly I've seen enough people with the "if technology was available to transform myself into my chosen animal, I'd do it in a heartbeat" tag on their furcode, and noted eager attendance at related convention programming. Right now doctors are prohibited from performing procedures that make people look less human, which severely limits the number of people who can actually go through with their desires.

As it happens, I did take a photo of the reverse of that at the MIT Museum just a few weeks ago. Wish I'd got a better one, but it was a devilishly hard thing to photograph at all. I'm not sure that's quite what you had in mind, though. :-)

An interesting question arises - how big is the furry lifestyling community in general? What proportion of fans are just fans, and what proportion incorporate it into their lifestyle? GreenReaper 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could simply remove the "extensive" from "extensive body modification". There are enough people that consider themselves "lifestyler" that have smaller body motifications like piercings, tattoos of their favourite animals or quite sharp fingernails.

As for the question about the size of the furry lifestyler community, I don't think that can be found out. As with furry itself, there's no clear definition, it overlaps with Therianthropy, Otherkin and other subcultures, and there are no studies on this subject, of course. So I don't think we should say very much about the size of it, other that it is "small", compared to the rest of the fandom. --Conti|✉ 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They both sound good to me. GreenReaper 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, extensive and permanent body modifications are not a fandom issue at all. When you get to that point, you have journeyed far a field from anything that can be covered by a fandom, or even by a religion. The only realm I can see this falling into is individual eccentricity. And, yes, if you even suggest that a number of furry fans and/or lifestylers might be that eccentric, it does become a stigma.

The most honest thing you could say would be that a number have said they might like to try it. But don’t make it sound like dozens or hundreds of people are falling over themselves to have visible and irreparable modifications. Not unless you’ve got some evidence stronger than a number of people in the community expressing fanciful thoughts.

Sure, many people might put in their furry code that they would do it if it became scientifically possible. But you have to remember, furry fandom is a fantasy fandom, and turning into an animal is a nice fantasy. But actually face somebody with the knife and the prospect of being a social oddity for life, and it’s no longer a fun fantasy. Thus, you can’t base anything on what a bunch of fantasy fans say they would do. Chances are the whole thing is no more real to them than the comics they follow or the stories they read. You can’t say what they would do when faced with the prospect in reality. Perri Rhoades 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)