Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

GOOD JOB :)

This and some other articles on Wiki are infamous for attracting controversy and bad edits. I personally think this version of the article is by far the best I've read in a very good while. More statistics, more updated and covering more subjects than what Rust had, would be extremely nice - if someone could just DO them. Congratulations is the word of the day. :) Henning 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people have been working on it. GreenReaper 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV template

I've removed the NPOV template that was added by an anon. Let's see:

  • Article contains sources which are NOT academic in defense of the fandom.
    • First of all, it is allowed to use sources that are not academic in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details on this. We preferably use academic sources, but there are exceptions in which we can use non academic sources. For example, we can use the Anthrocon "Standards of Conduct" as a source to state what the Anthrocon Standards of Conduct are. [1]
    • I've had a closer look at the sources and found not a single non-academic source that was actually "in defense" of the furry fandom. These sources mostly state details of the furry fandom that are, sadly, not covered in other, more reliable (per our standards) source.
  • Also, a criticism section has been repeatedly removed by furry admins seeking to push their POV.
    • As far as I can remember, the section that was removed a few times (with an extensive discussion on the talk page) basically said something in the like of "Furries suck, furriessucks.com says so!". We need reliable sources to say "Furries rule!", and we need reliable sources to say "Furries suck!". So please, give us some reliable sources that critizise the fandom for whatever reason, and we can work with that. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what? NPOV isn't showing two opposing points of view, it's not having either. We shouldn't have "Furries rule!" or "Furries suck!", we should report facts and leave it at that.TheWarlock 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited this article previously so I don't really know what the history of the page is, and realise that it probably attracts a fair bit of trolling; but it does feel as though it's at least somewhat POV, possibly due to some conflict of interest (it's understandable that editors might feel inclined - even if it's just subconsciously - to tone down sections that potray their subculture/interest/whatever in a negative light). So, in my opinion, the template is probably warranted. - 85.210.50.158 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you point to some specific problem statements within the article? NeoFreak 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really. If I did it would probably lead to debate over every specific statement, when I think it's more of a general thing. It just seems that whenever a more "unsavoury" or controversial aspect of the fandom is brought up, it's done in an apologetic tone; for example, by stating that many furries disapprove of whatever is being mentioned. Of course this is 100% accurate, but it would also be accurate to state - apologies in advance for the clumsy, extreme comparasion and evoking of Godwin's law - that many Nazis disapproved of the holocaust. - 85.210.50.158 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it would be more POV to have these aspects of the fandom mentioned and for them appear unchallenged ("unapologetically", if you will). In fact some of them might not get mentioned at all if it wasn't for the fact that many mass media portrayals of furries play up these aspects, which then obligates us to address them here and to set the record straight. I think some readers come here thinking these mass media portrayals are basically fairly accurate, and then when they read the article and discover it doesn't bear out that representation of furries, they think the article must be biased. (And as a historical note, most average citizens in Nazi Germany didn't know what was going on in the concentration camps, and were as shocked and horrified as the rest of us when they eventually found out.) --Mwalimu59 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is that attitude that he has a problem with: "us" and "set the record straight" is indicative of the effort to purposely portray the fandom in a particular light. NeoFreak 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, by "us" I was referring to the Wikipedia community, not to furry fans. --Mwalimu59 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong but you are a self-proclaimed furry and the way in which you declare that "we" need to "set the record straight" by drawing on your own personal knowledge makes it very easy for people to percieve a conflict of interest at best and a bias a worst. NeoFreak 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think TheWarlock has it right this article isn't about taking sides it's about reporting the facts. Just because some people don't like/make fun of/whatever furries doesn't qualify their opinions for inclusion. Some people don't like Tartar sauce but that doesn't mean that article is POV because it doesn't include anti-tartar-sauce opinions. This is about facts not opinions. ---Ochlophobia 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>You're totally right and you're not going to get any argument from me on that. The issue though is not the assertion of opinion but that alot of people have expressed over a long period of time that furry editors are making an effort to keep the less "wholesome" aspects of the fandom out of the artilce. It is a legit concern in my opinion. NeoFreak 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak has done a pretty much spot-on job of articulating my own feeling of general unease about this article. --85.210.50.158 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legit concern because the less wholesome aspects aren't being left out at all. The article already contains a whole laundry list of articles focusing on the less wholesome aspects (Vanity Fair, MTV Sex2K, CSI, et al.). Ochlophobia 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Research

(Note - I've taken the liberty of moving this to its own section, since it seems to be a seperate question. -- Kesh 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC) )

I've been doing research for a socioeconomic study on niche markets for Internet 'minority subculture' demographics (a mouthful, I condensed as best I could). Does anyone have further sources for companies selling furry-related merchandise versus individual artists/sellers? It seems that a good proportion (no more than half, though) of products/artworks are sexual in nature - more so than this article has let on. Half the sources at the bottom involve adult content. Even what I thought was a benign comic "Shanda the Panda" includes several "XXX" issues. I don't know whether or not I should describe the content of this article(which does not accurately reflect the source(s), in my opinion) as "misleading", but I am glad this discussion page is here to offer some insight to people unfamiliar with this topic. Although I plan to present my work at a conference in May, there are no plans for publishing and the full scope in relation to this article will probably be minimal at best. Again, if you know of businesses catering to this demographic, perhaps you could drop a note here. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.12.164 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Might I suggest WikiFur's categories for vendors and publishing companies? Note that the line can be blurred, as many companies that originated in the furry fandom will have been set up by individuals and are still not very big. Regarding the adult nature, I would suggest a proportion of 1/4 to 1/3 is about in line with what you see at furry conventions, comparing the size of the adult and PG areas in art auctions. It's true that sex sells, but so does cute and fluffy without sex. As for comics, there are a huge variety of both mature and non-mature ones out there, and while the mature ones are by no means unpopular, the most updated and popular tend to be more family-safe than otherwise (see also the Belfry WebComics Index). GreenReaper 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A flaw in your research. You're assuming the furry fandom market is strictly underground material created by the fandom. This is a great misconception. Furry fans get the majority of their clean materials and collectibles from professional companies like Disney. What you're doing would be equivalent to researching the anime market by only poling the hentai dojinshi vendors. What you should do is look at the article here and see all the professional titles that are connected to the fandom for furry characters. Any store that sells materials relative to such titles is supplying the fandom. Perri Rhoades 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Archives updated

I've taken the liberty of updating the archives. Archive 3 now has all Talk discussions from July through August, and I've created an archive for discussions from September through December (as all of those appear to have tapered off). If you want to continue any of the discussions that are now archived, please start a new topic here and do not edit the Archive page.

I've also added a navigation template to all four archive pages, to make it easier for those who want to read through them all in order. Hopefully someone finds that helpful. -- Kesh 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

What are non-anthropomorphic furries called? AKA; people that RP as normal (except talking) animals? 80.56.62.86 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They are simply called "non-anthro (furries)", although in reality that is a bit of a misnomer. They are physically non-anthropmorphic - however, the fact that they can talk is mentally anthropomorphic. Often you will get people specifying the reverse (that they have an "anthro" form). GreenReaper 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
THe opposite of an anthropomorphic (humanoid-shaped) furry would be a zoomorphic (animal-shaped) furry. —Xydexx 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I always liked the term "Four Footed Furries."
"Furries" is a generalized master term for all manner of animal characters with any degree of humanization. Most types of furries already have some other classification that was applied to them before the term "Furries" became popular. But there never was a distinction between 2 legged and 4 legged “Cartoon Animals.”

The term "feral" is a common word used to describe zoomorphic talking animals, ie: Feral RP

The problem with cartoon animals is that you can never depend on them to stay on 4 paws. For no reasonable explanation what so ever, a four footed furry will suddenly be walking on two legs or vice versa. So, technically, there is no value in a distinction between 4 and 2 legged furry characters. And since bug characters are also furries, this problem also applies to 6 and 8 footed furries. Perri Rhoades 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't they be just called "animals"? Inkbottle 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sex stuff

It might help if you had a link to Bunny Boy in Ghastly's Ghastly Comic as a typical example of internet humor surrounding furries. Clearly here internet humor treats furries in exactly the same way as it treats anime fans, and that'd be nice to say, but I think that is going a bit to far into OR. So just linking an example is good. JeffBurdges 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Who would it it help? Comme le Lapin 06:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be in there. Inkbottle 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that it's better to have a reason why something should be included, beyond that there's no reason why it shouldn't be included. What I meant was that I don't understand exactly how including this would be helpful to the reader. Comme le Lapin 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Some mention would seem to be in order if the comic was mentioned in, say, the New York Times, but the actual reference in that case would be the New York Times itself, not the Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their comic into wikipedia as "critics say..." It's simply unnecessary and would detract from writing a serious article, IMHO. —Xydexx 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What happens when someone is researching software YIFF and they find this disgusting fetish for Ranger Rick Porn? It's not necessary for "Yiff" to direct to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.226.107 (talk • contribs)

Goodness, I hope they do. Yiff is so much more interesting than YIFF. I'm sure the head developer thinks so, too - he is a furry, after all. :-) GreenReaper 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scalie??

Should people with an affinity for anthro reptiles be added? Someone told me it's a type of furry fandom (or yiffy) LizardPariah 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

quick correction- yiffy and furry fandom are not the same thing. it is probable that they both encompass scalies, but whereas f.f. includes the full explanation of the subculture, yiffy only pertains to the sexual aspect. It is a very important distinction. 75.68.122.55 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The main page already generically references "[anthropomorphic] animal characters" generically several times. At best, I think the most notice that's warranted is a mention that, even though the term "furry" is used, it does not necessarily restrict the appreciation to animals with fur. --Dajagr 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

However most people miss associate furrys as people who like animals with fur. They tend not to include reptilian anthros. I think at least we should create a notice. LizardPariah

I'm sure there was at one time mention of the fact that "Furry" does not mean animals with fur, and that it also lumps in reptile, bird, bug and furry alien life form characters. If it's been taken out it should be put back in. Perri Rhoades 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

CSI

I'd like to point out one thing that most furs tended to miss when they watched the episode of CSI. This was a little side that most people wouldn't notice. Grissom is either a fur, or thinks it's neat. At the end of the episode, after someone (I think it was Nick..) complains about it, they show Grissom's desk, which has a furcon mug, and I think a little plushie or something like that. Just something to add that should help restore people's views on Grissom, as I know one person that got really emotionally upset about his apparently negative reaction :)

- NemFX

What does that have to do with this article? Inkbottle 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

This page is well written, and thus wins an award!! In Soviet Russia, award wins YOU!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.232.195.172 (talk • contribs).

Anti-Furry humor and hate

I think this article is severly lacking in anti-furry information. Just go to 4chan and bask in the lulz. Maybe there should be a section on anti-furry ideas, which will of course lack an NPOV and be all about crying and persecution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.220.163 (talk • contribs).

  • Too bad that'll never happen as users like Conti, Greenreaper and Xydexx make sure that nothing even remotely anti-furry will ever grace the pages of Wikipedia. Taking a look at most of the furry pages, most of these articles grasp at straws to find some sort of notability (like saying that one of Bon Jovi's music videos was really a covert furry video). --147.126.95.166 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But it's true! The music scene is rife with furries. You know The Animals? They were! They "came out" after the events described in The Mouse Problem - note that their hits ended in 1969 - and became the Super Furry Animals. It's also no coincidence that they did so in Wales, a well-known dragon-haven. The truth is out there - just open your eyes, your ears, and your paws. GreenReaper 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wrote that late at night, let me explain. There's PLENTY of anti-furry humor out on the internet, and whether one agrees with it or not, it should be mentioned.68.198.220.163
Again, too bad, so sad. It won't be written about. Furry editors will have a hissy fit and make at least 1000 edits and reverts (just look at the discussion pages and history pages for anything furry). Unfortunately, articles like these are just another example of how certain fandoms feel the need to discuss every single aspect of their fandom to an audience that most likely doesn't give a shit (just look at anything related to Star Wars, as those pages are longer than some of the actually academic articles on Wikipedia). Anyway, I do agree there are plenty of furry humor instances to mention (like when Rush Limbaugh mentioned them on his program), but the powers that be won't let it happen. --24.12.64.9 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We have some coverage of the furry response to that incident on WikiFur. GreenReaper 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the more general case of why Wikipedia gets attention from furry fandom editors . . . Wikipedia's article comes up first on Google when searching for "furry fandom". As members of the fandom, we want it to be the best possible representation of our interests. And I don't mean "best" as in "most favourable" - I mean "most accurate", "most informative" and "most understandable". We wouldn't want anyone misled into thinking the fandom is all cute fluffy bunnies and PG artwork. That sets a standard that is impossible for the actual fandom to maintain, even if it were seen as desirable (which I think is not the case, for most fans at least). At the same time, we don't want the article to be dominated by the view that CSI and Vanity Fair have promulgated - because that's just as one-sided. We want it to be a good article, because it is in our interests for it to be good, and that is why we watch it like a hawk. As for detail . . . if you're not interested in learning more about the topic, that's fine, but don't fault us for trying to provide for those that are. Of the hundreds who read this page every day, chances are most of them came here specifically to do so. GreenReaper 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The participation of a particular group in an article about that group can be productive in that the members are the most familiar with the subject and are most able to quickly and easily find good sources. The flip side of this that original research creep often follows as memebrs of the group find things in the article that they find to be untrue or misrepresentative from their own personal experiance. This is far from the first time that editors have raised the issue of the conflict of interest that arises from active fandom (and/or "pro-lifestyle") editors working in these areas of wikipedia. I've found most (although there are some huge exceptions) furry editors are "wikipedia first" types that want to abide by the rules and work to improve wikipedia before proselytizing their subculture. If there is a more negative viewpoint that can be established and sourced it is in the interest of fairness that we cover it. What is not acceptable is the inclusion of furry "hate sites" or the usual crap that pops up on the internet. These sources do not meet the requirements of the attribution policy. NeoFreak 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What is "anti-furry" anything and why is it notable esp when so many seem to think most furry material itself isn't notable? Of course then you would also have to consider that almost zero "anti-furry" material would ever meet the requierments of the attribution policy. Just asking. NeoFreak 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Given a number of recent furry-related articles that have been removed for being non-notable or for lacking adequate sources (sometimes over the protests of members of the furry fandom and despite their efforts to improve the articles), I find it interesting that we have someone complaining that an aspect of the fandom isn't covered well enough, albeit a negative one. But this is Wikipedia, and anyone who thinks they can write well-sourced, NPOV material on anti-furries, either to include in existing articles or as a new article, and have it stand up to peer review is welcome to do so. --Mwalimu59 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not part of the fandom. I'm a member of 4chan (/b/ringing in /b/lackup!), and I just personally agree with their memetic opinion on furries. 4chan is pretty big, as are many humor websites that either take a real or satirical negative position against the furry fandom, and should at least be mentioned. 68.198.220.163
OMG FURSECUTION SKRITCH SKRITCH YIFF YIFF --147.126.95.166 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, anonymous IP from Loyola, for your deep, insightful, and well-thought-through contribution to this discussion. Your opinions will surely be given all the consideration they deserve in making future changes to this article. --Dajagr 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More like anonymous female cyclist IP on wheels from Loyola. 64.180.173.214 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Prejudiced editing

" Too bad that'll never happen as users like Conti, Greenreaper and Xydexx make sure that nothing even remotely anti-furry will ever grace the pages of Wikipedia. Taking a look at most of the furry pages, most of these articles grasp at straws to find some sort of notability (like saying that one of Bon Jovi's music videos was really a covert furry video). --147.126.95.166 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)} "

I just had a quick look at the history archive, but I have failed to find the mentioned prejudice against "anti-furry" content. Please don't accuse people of prejudiced editing. If you have proof, that's fine, but look into it before accusing people of anything. 144.131.250.162 09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mental Illness

This is obviously a mental illness that is halfway to bestiality. Is there any study on this? Any research that might indicate furry fans have other mental disorders such as autism. I mean, either there is an actual attraction to non-human animals, and an intense fear of sexual relations with actual people. Either one is severely abnormal.--Mark 2000 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the date on the above comment significant? --Mwalimu59 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another stupid April Fool's post or not the issue is not bunk. Alot of people in the Furry, Otherkin and Therianthrope comunites claim to have Asperger syndrome. Of course most of that is a self-diagnosis that probably just stems from being socially akward but if relaible sources can be found it would be a point of interest.
While I agree that members of the fandom that enjoy the "sexual aspects" of the community have zoophilic tendencies that doesn't encompass the entire fandom and I wouldn't want to suggest that. NeoFreak 14:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Depending on what you use as a standard to define normality, all fandoms and forms of geekery could be considered a mental maladjustment. It’s only been since like the late 70’s that any adult caught reading comic books wasn’t looked on as being seriously cracked. But in this day and age, being cracked seems to be so common it could be considered normal. Thus everyone from Trekkies to Furries are cracked up to the state of modern normality. This is the future of mankind. Have a good cry and get over it. Perri Rhoades 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't hurt your feelings did I? There is a difference between a mental illness and social maladjustment, although I'm not sure what a "mental maladjustment" is. Forget I bought it up, I'm doubt there is any way to attribute any kind of label of mental illness to the furry fandom so it's a red herring of a conversation, one that will just lead to e-tears and falmes. NeoFreak 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing though- is anything sexually related but not intended to produce children a malajustment in a sexual sense? 68.198.220.163
I would be careful when comparing the desire for another species (which usually cannot communicate their consent to a human) with a consenting homosexual relationship. There's a huge difference. I think what we're looking at is a page completely controlled by closet bestiality types who are trying to make their weird obsession legit and it's really not encyclopedic at all. Lets face it folks: Obsession with Trek is interest in a narrative and a universe. Fury Fandom is the love of a concept no matter the environment it takes shape in. That concept is other animals with human genitals. EVERYONE loves anthropomorphized animals. EVERYONE. I have bugs bunny tattooed on my arm. But we are not all "fury fans". So whats the difference? It can't be anything other than the sexual.--Mark 2000 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You have Bugs Bunny tattooed on your arm. You are a fan of a Furry. That makes you a Furry fan. That being the case, you are talking about yourself. So, is your interest in Bugs Bunny sexual or not? If not, congratulations. You're an average Furry fan. If it is sexual, you are a very sick, sick Furry fan.
Be that as it may, however sick certain fans of anything may be, that does not reflect on the object of the fandom. In this case, according to alt.fan.furry, the object is Funny Animals, i.e. Bugs Bunny. Nor does it reflect on the fandom for Funny Animals, Bugs Bunny. It simply reflects that we live in a very sick world, and every fandom has its share of sickos. Perri Rhoades 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of things worth pointing out here. First of all, for most furry fans it is not primarily a sexual thing. While many do enjoy adult artwork and other adult aspects of the fandom, there are also many are not interested in those things and a few who openly despise that they exist. Second, most furry fans who do like the sexuality aspect of it don't care for bestiality and some of them despise it quite strongly. They draw an important distinction between sex involving a sentient, anthropomorphic fictional animal-like character who is capable of consenting to sexual acts, and a real animal who is not. --Mwalimu59 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what all of you missed in my point is that every human being on earth is a furry fan by your definition (especially the unsigned one at the top). Mascots and kids on holloween dress up in animal costumes. So then what is special about this "furry fandom" if everyone belongs? There is a difference, and that is furry fans like animals with dicks and tits and labias. Any character from Bugs Bunny to Teddy Rockspin does not have those qualities. If you can find anyother difference between a normal person and a furry fan let me know. If you can't, and you also don't thing the genital thing rings true then this article should be deleted as it's about something that doesn't exist. --Mark 2000 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line for science fiction fans? Am I a fan if I watch a few episodes of Star Trek a week, or does it have to be more than that? Do I have to go to a convention, or dress up, or collect the books, or what? We're talking about shades of grey. There is no hard and fast rule; most people would go by how much time they spend on it as a hobby, and that's probably the closest you can get. And yet few people would deny that there is such a thing as science fiction fandom, or that the existence of people who just watched Doctor Who at Christmas invalidated the concept. Similarly, few would claim that just because some people dressed up as Klingons and had kinky BDSM rituals involving the bat'leth meant this was a defining trait of sci-fi fandom - although the bat'leth might be more popular if it was.
A random person might appreciate a good episode of Bugs Bunny. A furry fan might imagine what it would be like to be Bugs Bunny, or want to make their own anthropomorphic cartoon having seen it, or dress up as him (or, more likely, a character of their own design) to scare amuse the local kids. Of course, other people might do some of these things and not be classified as fans, but furries might take significant time over it. Definitions are inclusive because whenever people have tried to make an exclusive definition, it has excluded someone who is fairly clearly (and in their own mind) a furry fan. Certainly, you can be a fan without going to furry conventions, without actively creating material, and yes, even without being interested in the sexual aspects. That's why the newsgroup thread goes "You might be a furry if . . ." rather than "You're not a furry unless . . ." GreenReaper 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While "How sick are furries?" might be an interesting question, this is not the right place to discuss this unless actual sources that make this claim are provided. This page is for discussion about the article, and not its content. --Conti|✉ 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There's several websites, blogs, videos etc... that all criticise the furry fandom. Such a topic should have a part about criticism. CYD is a good source as it itself is proof of criticism since it has articles criticising the furry fandom. By all means select other sources if you wish but I believe that such a subject should be included in the article. Do your homework, there has even been violence between the fandom and members of Something Awful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrahamGRA (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The threshold for inclusion of information is not whether or not it is true. It's whether or not we can verify it through the attibution of reliable sources. ED CYD are not reliable sources and are not notable enough in their own right as set out in that criteria for inclusion on their own merits. Therefore any information being sourced to either needs to be removed. NeoFreak 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you just decide it's not reliable? It's not just a source of information, it's evidence of what was stated in the section of the article. That MAKES it a reliable source for the subject, which is criticism of the fandom. What is there to say it's not reliable considering it is a primary source. Show me proof or they're going to be used as sources. Oh and consider that the article itself seems to get vandalized a lot. GrahamGRA 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're running into the issue that Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not a secondary source (because we cannot guarantee to have experts writing the articles). It's not kosher to use primary sources to prove something like that - it needs someone else who is viewed as a trusted source capable of doing the research and fact-checking it. Doing otherwise is considered original research, and fair game for removal. Personally, I think that's a bit silly sometimes (especially given how it's not enforced uniformly on topics where nobody really has strong opinions), but it's how Wikipedia works.
In this case it's not entirely unreasonable. You can find criticism for just about anything on the Internet - even manufacture your own - and only an expert in the field would be able to say that the criticism was significant in comparison to other fandoms. They would have to publish somewhere that checked their qualifications - perhaps in a news report or scientific study. So, find that report about the specific topic (the criticism of furry fandom), and we can use it as a reference. GreenReaper 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed know of criticism that was on some news channel, it's on some video somewhere... I'll find it when I can be arsed it's too late now. EDIT: Yeah feck it, that video is long gone. Well played good sir. GrahamGRA 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are realy desperate there was a Rush Limbaugh segment of him making fun of furies when they rolled into town for a convention. I'm sure that it can't be that hard to find. NeoFreak 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
While I understand that Wikipedia needs all that 'reliable source' crap for things like this, you have to admit, it's pretty sad that people don't just take all this arguing, and the tens of thousands (in the very least) of people on the internet that make fun of at least some aspects of furry fandom to be enough proof. I mean, come on, to say that all this is not a good enough source of criticism because of Wikipedia's source rules is just bureaucratic to the point of insanity. Sandwiches99 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish what is true, but rather what is verifiable. The rules are here for a reason, and if it isn't hard to find sources (and I know it isn't), then be bold and add them (though we certainly don't need a great heaping of them, like we might if this was a snark article). Blast [improve me] 26.04.07 0509 (UTC)
I took out the mention of CYD because reading over it, it sounded a lot like an advert for a non-notable site. Lots of sites have "served to bring attention to some of the more extreme examples of the furry fandom", both within it and without it (arguably, ED has done far more in this respect). GreenReaper 05:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)