Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 7

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 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Good Article?

Do you think this article is of good enough quality to be put forward as a Good article? I think it is probably good enough. ISD 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article fits the criteria, however there is an argument that it should go for peer review due to its length. Might be worth going for good article as a starting point, though. GreenReaper 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to send to a peer review first, but maybe we should wait to see what other users think. If no-one else responses in one or two days, then I'll put it forward for PR. ISD 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally think of peer review as being a step after GA and on the road to FA, but I've only driven one article that direction thus far, so that doesn't mean much. GA is pretty relaxed, however, so it might be worth putting it up for that first and, if there are some problems brought up, do a peer review afterwards to help clear them up. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Following on from what has been said, I've decided to put the article up for GA. ISD 07:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks alright to me at a glance and I've never edited the article before, but I'd have to examine it in detail to see if it really does pass all the criteria.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

professional psychological opinions

What is the professional psychological opinion about furs? Is furry considered a mental disease like dementia, a fetish like watersports, a "normal" attribute of sexuality like straight/gay/bi, or something else? Is there a general consensus? Herorev 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Star Trek fans suffering from a mental disease? Not last time I checked. I'm hesitant to respond to this, as it seems a bit of a leading question, but frankly, I doubt there's a professional opinion regarding the fandom - which is what it is. Furry fandom is, far as I and most others I know are concerned, not a fetish, a reflection of sexuality, or anything else like that. Unfortunately, those seem to be the way it's portrayed more often than not in the media, which results in questions like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Most people into furry consider it a hobby and a fan community comparable to other interests such as Sci-fi, Star Trek, Star Wars, animé, comic, fantasy, SCA, LARP, and so forth. I'd be interested in seeing what the psychological community has to say about these kind of fandoms in general. I'm not aware of any opinions that address furry fandom specifically but I'd be surprised if they were much different than opinions on fandom phenomena in general. Does that answer your question? --Mwalimu59 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in The Psychology of the Sports Fan, though it's a bit more about externalizing your identity to a team rather than to a character. It does appear to have the same intensity. GreenReaper 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was really referring to the people who have sex while dressed like animals and/or feel they have the spirit of an animal. I haven't heard of Star Trek fans having sex while in costume or believing they really were a storm trooper or something. I was under the impression that those kind of furs were the majority. If not, how common are they? Are there any numbers? I'm genuinely interested in learning what the professionals think of those kinds of furs. Furry sex could easily be viewed as a fetish, and people who actually literally believe they are animals in human bodies could easily be viewed as having a mental illness. Herorev 02:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that only about 14% (IIRC) have costumes at all, they're definitely not in the majority. When you bring costume sex into it, you need to remember that's something that gets talked about more than actually happens. You're talking a very tiny minority at best. As far as what the professionals think, I can recall at least one article that stated they're not crazy. –Ochlophobia
There was a blog article about Rocky Mountain Fur Con a couple of months ago that gives a pretty good overview of some of the myths and truths about sexuality in furry fandom, including fursuit sex. I'm not sure about the people who believe they have an animal spirit, but I'm not aware of any cases of people having trouble functioning in society as a result of that belief. (What would you call that - species identity disorder, perhaps?) I haven't looked into it but it wouldn't surprised me if there are at least a few Trekkies who believe with all sincerity that they are a Klingon or a Vulcan trapped in a human body. Is that weirder than thinking you're a wolf or a tiger trapped in a human body? --Mwalimu59 04:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I've known folks who believe they have animal spirits or souls of fantasy creatures rather than human ones, and call themselves Therians or Otherkin. There arepeople who believe they have the souls of fictional characters who call themselves "Otakukin". Personally, I don't see how either of these are mental disorders, any more than someone who believes God watches over them personally, or whose own body becomes possessed by a spirit during religious ritual (Vodou, Pentecostalism, etc.). And they really have nothing to do with the furry fandom. Just like a Star Trek convention may have a small subset of people who really believe they have Klingon souls, a furry con may have a small subset of folks who think they have animal/dragon/etc. souls. It's not inherent to the fandom. -- Kesh 13:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no one answered the question, I will. There have been no formal psychological studies of furrydom as far as I am aware, I don't subscribe to any journals however, so it is possible that someone may have studied it, but progress in the field of psychology is very slow. My own observation is that furrdom is a fetish, derived from childhood mental associations with animals. Specificly say imaginary friends or associations with cartoons. As the article states some furrys consider mid 1970s disney movies to be the origins of furrydom. I feel that when a child enters puberty, and is introverted or neglected, or even abused, even mildly, and hasnt made the transition from childhood towards adult associations of animals, characters, and cartoons and differentiated between reality and imagination, you end up with a furry orherkin or what have you. I know from personal experiance that early exposure to things, combined with neglect or abuse of any sort can cause a major change in ones thinking. It's the only thing that makes any sense to me, and if there were any professional psychologists on wikipedia im sure they would agree. and to the comments above, the idea of being possessed during a religeous ritual is seen as influenced hysteria, and is therefore a mental malformation so to speak. Furrydom is primarily sexual, that is fact, as any furry can tell you a major component of this culture or fetish is pornography. therians and otherkin arent even mentaly damaged, they just like to pretend they are something they arent, whereas i think that furrydom and even in some cases otherkin subcultures can manifest into very real... realities for these people. i have seen otherkin who are convinced cartoons are inlove with them. In the case of furrydom i think most furrys dont even realize just what it is that makes them furry. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.35.242 (talk)

Uh, there's a study right in this article. It even has its own heading. And, in fact, another (admittedly, not published) being analyzed right now. Now, these are social psychology, but then furry fandom is significantly a social activity. I also think your definition of the terms therian and otherkin do not match up with those in general use.
As for "primarily sexual" . . . there's a difference between a thing being a component and being the focus. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals. Furry erotica is one particular expression of the artistic portion of that theme. There's no denying there is a lot of it out there - but there's far more non-erotic artwork, as you can see if you go look at a site like Fur Affinity (make sure you login, or you won't see any mature works). Even at places like the Anthrocon art show, where you might expect works drawn for prurient interest to be very popular, mature artwork made up less than 1/3 of the pieces. GreenReaper 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to I haven't heard of Star Trek fans having sex while in costume or believing they really were a storm trooper or somethin - I, for one, have heard plenty. The things Star Trek or Star Wars fans do behind closed doors would make your average furry blush. But then, neither us nor them hold a candle to hardcore Anime fans! --Cubbi 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If probably arose from watching too many cartoons as children and creating some kind of bond. it most definately is a mental disorder since it revolves entirely around fantasy. --AlexOvShaolin 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to speculate on whether watching too many cartoons is the cause, or even a contributing factor (or why other kids who watched the same cartoons weren't similarly affected). If furry furry fans watched those cartoons more when they were younger, maybe it's because the inclination was already there from a young age. Pinpointing the cause could prove to be as elusive as figuring out what causes some people to be gay.
Why would the fact that it's fantasy make it a mental disorder? Furry fandom is just one of many interests that revolve around fantasy, so if that makes it a mental disorder then it follows that the same would be true for all of those other interests as well. Is that what you're suggesting? --Mwalimu59 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By that logic, a whole host of Star Wars fans are suffering from a mental disorder. Not to mention women who still dream of fairy tale romances and write entire novel genres about them. It's very hard to take an argument like this seriously. -- Kesh 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recently heard the word Hyperreality used to describe the furry condition. The article might give you something to chew on. Perri Rhoades 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

First of all I'll state that I have no affiliation with the furry fandom, but I certainly find reading about the community interesting. So, when I noticed that it was currently a good article nominee, I decided to consider reviewing it. Against the good article criteria:

1. It is well written.

Pass. Complies with all the MOS guidelines, prose is decent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Fail. What I know about the furry fandom more or less comes from this article. However, more citations are needed for certain statements. I notice several instances of weasel words (no pun intended, for the subject I'm reviewing) and statements without proper attribution, such as:

  • During the 1980s, the increasing number of self-professed furry fans began to publish fanzines, developing a diverse social group, that eventually began to schedule social gatherings.
  • Throughout the next decade, the Internet became accessible to the general population, and became the most popular means for furry fans to socialize. The newsgroup alt.fan.furry was created in November of 1990, and virtual environments such as MUCKs also became popular places on the Internet for fans to meet and communicate.
  • One of the newest virtual environments to attract furry fans is Second Life.
  • Many members of furry fandom have cited the historical usage of anthropomorphic animals in world mythology as an inspiration, including Egyptian, Greek, Japanese, and Native American traditions. Aesop's Fables is also commonly cited on lists of furry resources.

These are from the 'history and inspiration' section alone. The 'art and literature' section is full of weasel words like "many furry fans..." and "some furries..." ... throughout the rest of the article there are many more weasel words, like "often", "some", and "many" used to describe the habits of the fandom.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

Pass. It's not a very long article, but it seems to represent different aspects fairly and even has room for a bit of criticism.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Weak pass. I wouldn't mind seeing slightly more criticism to keep it balanced, but perhaps the fandom isn't criticised that much at all by the media. Sites like godhatesfurries.com are interesting and their viewpoints would be worth including if the site was a reliable source - I'd personally not object to its citation. Also, more about the sex side of the fandom could be included, but it's not a pressing issue. The point is that it's very easy for outsiders to criticise the fandom and mock those in it, so I'd hate to see the article turn into something that merely glorifies the fandom without highlighting any of the negative aspects (if any).

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war.

Pass. The page was semi-protected for a short while fairly recently, but that was due to vandalism. In fact, I've noticed that the page receives a huge amount of vandalism, probably due to the controversy of the topic, but the actual page content itself doesn't seem to be changing that much.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Pass. All own work images, so no problems at all here. The images are useful too.

The main problem are the areas of unsourced text and weasel wording, and slight neutrality concerns. Therefore, I'm putting the article on hold so that you can address the concerns listed above.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to perform all that you asked for. I've removed weasel words, sorted out the problems with unreferenced text, and tried to include more criticism by including a section on anti-furries. ISD 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the two or three kids who stood out in the rain to protest Anthrocon this year (mentioned in the Anthrocon 2007 articles, but with no website affiliation—rumor has it they were from 7chan, not Something Awful or Portal Of Evil), have anti-furries ever received any significant or verifiable media coverage at all? —Ochlophobia

GA fail

It's close, but there are still unsourced statements here and a few weasel worded phrases. On top of that, you're using WikiFur as a source, as well as other sources which are of questionable reliability. You can renominate it once these concerns have been addressed, and get another user to look at the article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

NOV?

Why has the neutrality of this article being called into question? No-one has explained why, and it appears the template was included by an anonymous user. ISD 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

IP is not necessarily equivalent to anon. Possibilities include:
  1. Greenreaper and other furries trying to portray the fandom positively, especially pushing links to the absolutely terrible WikiFur
  2. Some people feel that the article glosses over a lot of the darker aspects of the fandom; the creepy stalkers who got various shows cancelled and made the big studios nervous about furries, the high level of sexualization, ect.
I'll look over the article and see if I notice anything glaring. Titanium Dragon 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Looks mostly fine to me. Unless someone objects, the tag should be removed. My only real complaint about the article is the remaining link to Wikifur regarding the UC study, which should be linked to the actual study if someone knows the location of it.
The only thing that is really missing is any sort of criticism of the fandom; there exists a great deal of hostility towards furs, though a lot of it is mostly for fun because a lot of furries overreact, plus a lot of them are just kind of sad.Titanium Dragon 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is trying to find any reliable sources for criticism. If anyone can find any good references and include them in the article then that would be of a great benefit. ISD 12:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The anon did explain him/herself up under the "Criticism 3" section, but didn't really provide any suggestions for clearing up any perceived POV. And I agree with ISD - most of the critical sources surrounding furry come from non-reliable sites, as previous discussions have indicated. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment to the user's talk page asking him to come forth with more specific suggestions. How long should we wait for a response before removing the POV tag? --Mwalimu59 19:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say three days. ISD 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been six days, and nary a peep. I'm removing the POV tag. --Dajagr 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to gloss over the darker aspects of furries. Is there some way to include that without angering the furry editors here? --72.203.157.110 02:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. None whatsoever. Nobody must ever know about our secret NRA contributions or the involved plans for mass fursuit suicides. GreenReaper 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone already knows about them and published it in a reliable source. Someguy1221 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem. We keep getting anonymous users saying the article is "biased" or "needs critcism," and then they never actually bother to point any out. We've already gone over this numerous times: we need reliable and verifiable sources of criticism. Forums don't count. Blogs don't count. And outside of those, no one has found any notable criticisms.
It's not about "angering the furry editors," it's about following Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. -- Kesh 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the furry art section, which doesn't seem to mention furry porn, a huge part of furry art/culture. Also, the article attempts to brush off their portrayal in CSI and other television shows by referring to "myths and stereotypes" that have been "disproved". Aditionally, the article doesn't seem to talk about furries much except to mention they are "creeps" who "haven't left their parents basement". While this is probably true, you should talk more about furries beyond sexual orientation and political leanings.--72.203.157.110 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is mention of furry porography/erotica in the section on furry sexuality, although it could be significantly improved (it was originally described more completely in yiff, but some people decided that it wasn't sufficiently notable and it got wiped out). CSI is brushed off because, well, it's not actually based on what a furry convention is like, but on what the most convenient setting for an entertaining murder mystery would be. One look at the PafCon schedule - with three paid meals per day! - would tell you that (compare to a real one). They are a reliable source in terms of saying they represented the fandom in this manner, but not for making actual factual statements about the fandom. As for talking about furries, ultimately we are bound by the same rules which restrict criticism - we should only really say something if a reliable source has said it. There are plenty of news stories referenced, so I suggest having a look at some of them and extracting some quotes from them. GreenReaper 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What about all the people who have left Furry Fandom over the years in protest of the over-sexuality and embarrassing behavior? Have none of them ever published an "I'm leaving the fandom" statement in a professional Furry publication? For that matter, is there any such thing as a professional Furry publication?
This is a problem. The most significant criticism I'm hearing lately is coming from Furries themselves, not from SA, CYD or GHF. But it's all coming out in blogs. So what can you do?
I am now in the position of having to agree that the article is biased and should have a criticism section. The trouble is, the media isn't seeing anything about the fandom that isn't apparent on the surface. They take lots of pictures of interesting fursuits, but they never try to get into the pros and cons of being a fan.
So, what does Wikipedia do when faced with a topic that is amateur by nature, and therefore has no professional publications? It could be that Wikipedia is just not equipped to do this subject justice. Or, Wikipedia could just say that whatever does not involve professional publications is none of its business.
Also interesting is that there are no references in the article from professional animation or comics publications acknowledging Furry Fandom as a legitimate fandom for the anthropomorphic arts. From where I sit, I see some documentation of a Furry Subculture. But a Furry Fandom?
All those titles listed in the inspiration section, are they the products sold at Furry cons? Do the entertainment companies that make billions off of anthropomorphics each year commonly have much of a presence at Furry cons? Do they advertise their products specifically to a Furry Fandom? And, for that matter, how much importance does this so called Furry Fandom place on such professional products? And if not, what in the world is Furry Fandom really?
As the person who pushed to get the section in that includes all those pro titles, I have to inform you that I regularly get kicked in the teeth by Furries for connecting Furry Fandom with that stuff. Much of what I wrote for this article was heavily influenced by my own opinion which I backed up with deceptive documentation that came primarily from Furry sources of questionable professionalism. Much of which my personal experience now leads me to disagree with. If Wikipedia would allow me to take anything back, I'd retract my entire influence on this article. Perri Rhoades 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey dispute AGAIN

Somebody (ElKevbo) just went ahead and deleted the paragraph I added almost a year ago. We had a long discussion about this before, and the paragraph was to be added to keep the survey from being deleted. I said it before, and will say it again. The survey is bad research and should not even be on here in the first place. I have nothing against furries, only stupidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Furry_fandom/Archive_4#Survey_dispute.3F

While I have my concerns about the survey, the paragraph you've written is WP:OR. I'm thinking we'd be better off without the section entirely, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. That aside, the "stupidity" comment is a bit too WP:BITE-y for my taste. -- Kesh 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really needs a whole section to itself, and the list method of presentation may not be optimal - it could probably be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs. Removing it altogether seems counter-productive, though. Regardless of its origin, the Rust survey is the only significant statistical data we have to hand covering the period. The very fact that it was done a while ago means it can help give some perspective on the way the fandom may be changing over time - this article shouldn't just cover the present, but the past as well. More recent surveys draw from similar pools of participants (in one case I can think of, Anthrocon attendees; in another, self-selected online participants), so they are unlikely to be much better in terms of participant randomization. At least Rust talked to the majority of people he was surveying to verify their uniqueness (and specifically states that he discarded those who attempted to gave returns with invalid IDs).
Look, let's address the pink elephant in the room. This section of the article is specifically crafted and displayed to give the public the idea that there is a certain sexual demographic in the furry world. We do not have such a section on the Republican Party (United States) article, nor do we have one on the Science_fiction_fandom article. Why is this section in here? I think the furries have an agenda here and have resisted many efforts to take this useless and OUTDATED piece of junk off their keynote webpage. Excuse me for the strong words, but I've had enough! If I cannot take care of this, I will get a rightful and due consensus from the general wikipedia community (I.E. NON watchers of this article -- dont try bringing the whole wikifur over here for a visit), who will probably agree with me. Enough with the weak inductive argument that this is the only research and should be on here. This research is both outdated (on a different 'generation' of the furry community), and it is also irrelevant and doesn't belong on here (as we don't see it on mainstream articles).Nuzz604 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel it requires a look from other members of this community, go right ahead and suggest it to them. There are many avenues for doing so. As a practical matter there has been great demand from non-members of the furry fandom for sexual information regarding the fandom to be presented in the article, because - for whatever reason - they feel it is an important and unique factor of the fandom as compared to other fandoms. I suspect many members would rather it were not covered - however, if we are going to have it, we should present what information we have available on the topic. The argument about such information being "outdated" is a non-issue; we don't throw out historical information just because it no longer represents the current state of affairs - we simply say "this is how it was, and now it is like this." It is quite possible for demographics to change over time, and if they have that is an important detail which should be noted, as it affects the interpretation of sources (consider sources from the 19th and early 20th centuries which might well express views which would be considered highly racist today). GreenReaper 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we take his conclusions with a large grain of salt? Of course - his experience is coloured by his membership of the fandom. Statements of judgment should be closely linked to the identity of the person making them, and not stated as fact. However, allowing for error - and a certain amount of population drift due to 6+ years of growth - the underlying statistical data appears consistent with subsequent surveys. When you have two independently-run surveys giving similar sets of results, it lends credence to both. GreenReaper 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Art And Literature Section Problem

It currently says, " Websites such as Deviant Art also contain forms of furry fandom, with the term "anthro" put before any animal to search for this kind of art. For instance, the search "anthro dragon" will produce pieces of art with humanoid dragons: biped, clothes, sometimes hair, etc. The same goes for just about any other anthro animal. These are often dubbed simply anthros."

This is totally bogus, as this quote from DA artist Skribbles attests. "I can draw humans and animals separately, but for some reason I really prefer anthro. I love all kinds of art, but I've been doing the anthro thing since the mid-90's, and as much as I try to do something else, I can't get away from this. As I've said, I can do other things, but this is something I really love and I feel really close to it for some reason. But don't call me a furry, it pisses me off. In my mind, furry and anthro are really different."

DA uses "Anthro" as a general classification for all types of anthropomorphic art. There is nothing in the term "Anthro" intrinsically connected to "Furry." And many artists in various other forms of the arts resent any such implication. Perri Rhoades 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Furries" are simply anthropomorphic animals. Think of furry as another word for anthro,. Some artists do not like to have their art labelled as "furry," true, but the two are essentially interchangeable. -- Kesh 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you prove that? I can't.
Furry seems to be more than an art style. It's an attitude, something pitched to a specific market, and something animation and comic book houses can easily distinguish between when deciding who to hire and who not to hire. Furry is becoming notorious for killing job opportunities for artists in the field of anthropomorphics. Therefore, to say they are the same needs to be backed up with something. Perri Rhoades 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have already rewritten that section while you were replying, so take a look and tell me what you think. As for "Can you prove that?"… what? No, calling furry "an attitude" is WP:OR. A simple observation of the art shows that "furries" are anthropomorphic animals by definition. The common (and unproven) notion that being outed as a a member of the fandom kills job opportunities would also be OR. I'm really baffled at what you're trying to get at here. -- Kesh 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking over it some more, I think the issue is the mix-up between "furry" as a descriptor of the art/characters, and "furry" as a descriptor of the fans & fandom itself. Perhaps the distinction needs to be made more clear in the article. However, my point still stands: furry characters are anthropomorphic animals, by definition. The fandom is a far more nebulous thing, and harder to pin down what makes a person a furry in that context. -- Kesh 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at it, but I still don't like the use of the term "Anthro" as if it was interchangeable with "Furry," because most people don't use it that way, and it suggests that anything found under the term "Anthro" should be considered "Furry." Especially considering that many use the term "Anthro" to deliberately differentiate themselves from "Furry." And also because "Anthro" is just the clipped form of "Anthropomorphics," and everything anthropomorphic is not Furry. Anthropomorphic is actually a term more common to science fiction, referring to robots and alien life forms and such.
Furry fans have a tendency to try to attach the term “Furry” to all kinds of things and say everything under the sun with an anthropomorphic or talking animal in it is Furry, but that's just a fan thing. The art world generally doesn't even acknowledge the existence of "Furry" as an art style. It acknowledges cartoon animals, funny animals, talking animals, etc., but "Furry Art" is not a term the world outside of the fandom recognizes.
Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as "Furry Art," unless it applies specifically to art done by the fandom for the fandom. Everything else is either cartooning or anthropomorphic fantasy art. So, if you want to use the term Anthro in this manner, you’ll need some citations that define just what Furry Art is, and why anyone would use the term Anthro when they mean Furry.
From the Furry end of things, this might seem to be nitpicking. But to the multitude of artists out there who want to be able to go on doing regular cartooning, fantasy art and allegorical fiction without being confused with Furries, there is a very important distinction here. Perri Rhoades 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You make it sound as if furries are holding the art world hostage! :)
If you prefer, think of furry as a sub-genre of anthro art. I agree, it's (primarily) a fandom usage to call anthropomorphic animal art "furry," but that's never been in dispute, so I fail to see why you're calling for citations now. I honestly get the feeling you're taking issue with the fandom's use of the term "furry art," more than its use in the article. The only things we could cite would be primary sources by those within the fandom.
At best, we could rewrite all instances of "furry art" in the article to variations of "anthropomorphic animal art" or "funny animal art," but I believe that would make the article more confusing to the reader than using the catch-all, fandom term. -- Kesh 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Setting aside for the moment that "anthropomorphic animal art" takes three times longer to say and "anthro art" always sounds like one is talking with a mouthful of marshmallows, the fact is that the term "furry fandom"—defined as the organized appreciation and dissemination of art and prose regarding fictional anthropomorphic characters—has been the standard name for this genre for at least 20 years, and that's what most people, including the media, refer to it as. Changing it to a lesser-known term just because some people are ashamed to admit they draw furries isn't going to change the fact that they're drawing furries, no matter how much denial and semantic gymnastics they put behind it.
Besides, "anthro" doesn't really make sense, because it actually means "human"; "anthro art" would actually mean "human art". —Ochlophobia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ochlophobia (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What I'm taking issue with is the concept of truth, which I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be about, but it is supposed to be about verifiability. And I don't think you can verify that Furry Fandom has been defined as anything by a reliable source, let alone anything that supports the statement, "the fact is that the term "furry fandom" defined as the organized appreciation and dissemination of art and prose regarding fictional anthropomorphic characters has been the standard name for this genre for at least 20 years, and that's what most people, including the media, refer to it as."
Furry Fandom can't even define itself, and the majority of the mainstream still hasn't heard of it, let alone used it to define anything. So, as someone who has fallen into the trap of putting these assumptions into the article in the past, I think it's about time we had some verifiability, if not some actual truth and accuracy.
I think you'll find in the long run that the group responsible for the artistic appreciation of animal characters is represented on the Funny Animal page. Furry, as has been verified by the media innumerable times, is the group that exists primarily for the sexualization of animal characters. Or the hentai division of Funny Animal enthusiasm. And that's about all Furry has ventured to define that is unique to itself.
But it doesn't matter what any of us think about this as individuals. All that matters is what the verifiable info says. And there's nothing verifiable that says Furry gets to lay claim to any term that is already in use by other people to represent other things. It doesn't even matter what things individual fans may refer to as Furry. What matters is how does the general media and public at large regard things. And, in most instances, to them Furry doesn't even exist. And to those who do know it exists - especially to those who have had any contact with it at all, they regard it as anything but a legitimate fandom for the general anthropomorphic arts, and it is not the business of Wikipedia to change their opinion in that respect by including a lot of unverifiable assumptions.
If someone from a professional publication were to interview me about it, I could show them exactly what Furry Fandom is. But Furry Fandom works very hard to keep that info away from the press these days. So we can't tell anyone much about the porn percentages, the required tolerance of fetish groups and illegal activities, the harassment, offensive behavior at cons, or the people walking out of the fandom on a regular basis and what reasons they give. Nope, can't say anything about all that. But we sure don't have to give it credentials the verifiable info doesn't support. And we certainly don't have to grant it licence to general terms that would allow it to lay claim to the territory of other fandoms. Perri Rhoades 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Definitional arguments aside: what is your proposed solution? -- Kesh 20:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

History And Inspiration Section

"According to YARF!, a magazine run by members of the fandom"

Was YARF a magazine or a fanzine?

"To distinguish them from seriously depicted animal characters, such as Lassie or Old Yeller, cartoon animals are referred to as funny animals"

Could somebody post the exact quote this is based on? The term "Funny Animals" is a lot older than Lassie or Old Yeller. Any documentation as to the exact origin and meaning of the term has been, up to this point, extremely elusive. Thus it's hard to determine if this wording is appropriate without being able to see the citation. Perri Rhoades 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fanzine" is just a neologism for a small-run magazine run by fans of a subject. As to "funny animals," I'm honestly not sure what you're asking for. -- Kesh 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fanzines are pretty much just paper blogs. They aren't reputable sources. That’s the problem with this article. We keep bending the rules to use inappropriate sources because nothing else is available.
What I'm asking for is to see what's being cited as a reference in the article for the quote above. The citation is from a book that I can't access online. Perri Rhoades 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, calling for specific citations is fair enough. Thank you for clarifying on that point. -- Kesh 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Furry Lifestylers Section

Much of this section is my writing, and a lot of it was based on opinion and hearsay. I don't think the current citations accurately justify a lot of the conclusions that remain. Aside from the bit about the split at alt.fan.furry, the rest is just me drawing conclusions from stuff I read on blogs. Perri Rhoades 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Furries In The Guinness Book Of World Records!

I heard somewhere furries recently made it into the Guinness Book Of World Records as "largest furry fan club". This should definitely be added to the article somewhere. Does anyone have the exact reference? —Ochlophobia 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You could use the cite book template to reference the book after it is published. ISD 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It already is published - that's where the scans are from. They sell it ahead of time to make sure people have time to buy it for Christmas. The publishing company is also called Guinness World Records (Ltd). The title is just Guinness World Records 2008. It's on page 123. GreenReaper 16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Article on furry sexuality?

Seeing as there is quite a lot about furry sexuality in this article, maybe it would be a good idea to create an article about Sexuality in the furry fandom? What does everyone else think? ISD 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it'd survive WP:N. It's too fandom-centric to have very many reliable sources, so it wouldn't show enough notability to form a stand-alone article. -- Kesh 14:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. It's a very interesting topic within furry itself, but I really don't think it could be justified in a general encyclopedia. WikiFur is the place for that sort of thing. Loganberry (Talk) 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning is that there used to be a separate article Yiff but it got AfD'ed several months ago and now redirects to a section of Furry fandom. --Mwalimu59 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that, but if I remember rightly, the old yiff article concerned only pornography. I was thinking that this article would include not just yiff, but also the sociological side of sexuality, including the two surveys. ISD 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and create it if you think you can provide enough reliable sources to write a reasonably sized article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Malformed footnote

Footnote 27 (as I type this) has a name ("NonhumanCatalogue") but no actual reference, meaning that 27 in the footnote list is blank. I don't know what it should be; could someone who does please fix it? Loganberry (Talk) 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Had to go digging in the edit history a little, but I think I've restored the full reference that was there up until a couple of weeks back. --Mwalimu59 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Under the article to-do list: "Merge with Wikifur's Furry Fandom page to create a more uniform message"

What does that mean? Is this page a message from furries to non-furries, or an encyclopedic article on furries? It can't be both. It is obviously biased from the viewpoint of a furry. Additionally, the article misses the main aspects of furry culture.

If a friend were to ask you what furries, you'd tell him about fursuits, furry art, yiffing, and fetishes. Those are the main aspects of furry culture. By reading this article, you might think furries are normal people who just have a few extra stuffed animals laying around. Surely someone can find some furry images from all of the terabytes of deviantart and other yiff stuff to incriminate these people? --72.207.228.114 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to feed the troll here. If someone honestly thinks those are the "main aspects of furry culture," we're not going to get anywhere. -- Kesh 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - we've been over this numerous times and those discussions are available in the talk archives to anyone who cares to review them. --Mwalimu59 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It's about time something got done to fix these furries. --76.165.246.9 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)