Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 8

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 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

Contents 1 POV 2 2 Remove the porn. NOW. 3 Restructure> 4 Furry POV 4.1 Nationalism's edits 5 Furry Lifestylers Section 6 Pictures, again 7 Porn 8 Criteria for being a furry 9 Remaining Professsional 10 NPOV 11 Furry Lifestyler 12 103%

POV 2

Once again, I've archived this debate, as it's gone completely off-topic. Feel free to start a new header about the subject of artwork in the article. This time, without the off-topic banter about geekiness, sexuality, and the fandom in general. Please? We can discuss improving the article through the use of appropriate images without these distractions. -- Kesh 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop doing this. Just mention that the discussion has gone off topic.--Nationalism 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
This article seems to omit mention of deviant sexual furry activities which are documented online in several places. http://mewsbox.furrynet.com/ygallery/WC_UW_Mew_Yuuda_Dash_col.jpg http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Mathias-BlackWolf/CrayBook01.jpg http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/47802/1182545086/JollySkUG.jpg I will try to put more examples of furries into the article. This article seems way too tolerant of the bestiality of furries. Violating an animal is a cruel practice.--76.165.246.9 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC) So, that's three examples of adult furry art, which is already discussed in the article. Most furry fans do not approve of bestiality, for the reason you cite among others. What other "deviant sexual furry activities" did you have in mind? If you can find reliable references you're free to add them to the article. --Mwalimu59 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Please stop removing criticism of furries and the furry fandom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.246.9 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Whether it's criticism or praise is entirely irrelevant: if it doesn't adhere to the verifiability and reliable sources policies, then it shouldn't be here. Full stop. Loganberry (Talk) 14:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) That's true of the article itself, but I think he was referring to the removal of the discussions here on the talk page. --Mwalimu59 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Ah well... I suppose that depends on whether you think it's a genuine discussion about how to improve the article, or just plain trolling. If the latter, blanking is justifiable. Loganberry (Talk) 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Obvious trolling; he's linked to three pictures, not reliable sources, and there's no valid criticism being referred to. let'im go hungry. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC) The pictures should be in the article as an example of yiffing and furry artwork --72.207.228.114 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) If you're serious about this, contact the artists and get them to release those images under the GDFL or Creative Commons licenses. Those images are copyrighted and we cannot use them here until they are released under a free license. -- Kesh 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Most furries draw some kind of furry stuff, can't a furry Wikipedian contribute an image?--72.207.228.114 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) We're furry writers, not furry artists. The majority of fans are neither. And really, complaining about the article and then telling us that we have to spend time to fix it to your satisfaction isn't going to get you very far. As Kesh said, if you think an image is a suitable addition to the article, you need to go and obtain permission to upload it here. That's how to effect change - by doing the work yourself. GreenReaper 04:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Tony Fox had the right idea when he mentioned not feeding. —Ochlophobia 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I find it very highly unlikely none of the editors of the furry wikipedia or the furry editors of this wikipedia have any images of furry art or yiffing. --72.207.228.114 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Something else to consider - before you go adding adult images to the article you might want to review WP:PORN and WP:PROFA. As I said before, the article already discusses the existence of adult furry artwork and I don't really see what's to be gained by including examples of it in the article, but if you think the inclusion of one or more images would pass muster among Wikipedia reviewers you're welcome to obtain the necessary permissions and add them to the article. --Mwalimu59 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Personally, I think it would make perfect sense to add an "adult" oriented image to the sex and furry fandom section, as representative of yiff art generally. We all know Wikipedia isn't censored, so there's no point retreading that, but it's hardly anything offensive by most's standards anyway; they're just drawings, like the various other sexual illustrations elsewhere on Wikipedia. I doubt it would be particularly difficult to find a GDFL or CC example, and telling people do go do it themselves if they want to impact change on the article seems deliberately obstructive, and needlessly pedantic - it's not your place to dictate the extent to which people should influence an article and making suggestions on a talk page is perfectly acceptable and long-established method of doing so. --85.210.13.204 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Permit me to make an observation here. Currently, the article does not even have a "non-adult" oriented image that is representative of furry art in general. Yes, there is the photograph of the sculpture, but from my experience, sculpture is the exception and not the norm for furry art. Most artists that I know are not willing to submit their art to the public domain, because they put a lot of effort into the art and they prefer to retain control over what happens to it, for a variety of reasons. So it really isn't the trivial effort that you seem to suggest to just "go out and find" a picture that's been released into the public domain, under any license. But, at any rate, I really suggest that, if the article needs an illustration, shouldn't it start with an illustration of general fandom art and not "yiff" art? --Dajagr 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC) (deindented for readability) Yes, you're right; I was subconsciously assuming there was still a furry art image, when in fact it's been removed. A yiff image would kill two birds with one stone however, since the only necessary distinction between a yiff and non-adult image is that in one of them the character(s) isn't wearing clothes (I don't buy into the idea that all cartoon animals fall under furry art for the same reasons Perri Rhoades mentioned further up the page). Most artists aren't willing to release their entire works under a copyleft license (which isn't the same as public domain, by the way), but many will release examples of their work. --85.210.156.35 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I would suggest attempting to convince some artists to release one or two images, though. I've yet to find one who was willing to do so. Also, for WP:NPOV reasons, I would suggest one "tame" image to go along with any "adult" images, otherwise it leans too close to the "furry is all about sex" stereotype. -- Kesh 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC) It don't know why there's a lack of furry art in the article, but it's not because of a lack of freely licensed images. There's ones at Wikimedia Commons or freely licensed ones can be found on WikiFur. --Rat at WikiFur 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) … now why the hell didn't I think of either of those places? Many of the images are fairly low-quality, but there's a few good examples of clean and adult art between the two. Should be able to pick two good images to represent typical artwork from there. -- Kesh 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) All furries worth their fursuits have accounts on the furry Wiki and drawings of themselves as animals. I'm sure you can find furry images there that have been released under the public domain. Additionally, the article should identify that furries are a subset of nerd culture. --Nationalism 04:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I don't see furries as something to the nerd culture. I disagree with that. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Agree with Esanchez here - there are certainly a lot of nerds/geeks in the fandom, and they have an influence, but it's just one of many influences. As for the images, at WikiFur we go by the rule that people can authorize images of themselves drawn by others to be displayed on the pages about them, because that's usually the point of commissioning them and so permission is implicitly given for that kind of use, but that does not allow the use of those images beyond those pages (i.e. we don't consider them for featuring on the front page, they wouldn't be used for a generic article unless it was very clearly a fair use, etc.). GreenReaper 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC) It's difficult to find a non-nerd in the fandom. Furries generally appear unkempt and enjoy geeky activities. Surely they are geeks- going to conventions, drawing furry art etc. are by definition nerdy things.--Nationalism 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Drawing furry art is an artistic thing. If you think all artists are nerds, you have a different idea of what a nerd is than I do. :-) I wouldn't deny that the most active and prominent members of the fandom are often pretty nerdy, but this is true of any fandom. There's certainly a significant proportion of non-nerds in the fandom, even at conventions. Something you said earlier suggests that you're trying to base norms on these prominent members. Remember that only about 15-18% own a fursuit, and less than half attend conventions (survey results). What you see in the fursuit-packed con reports is not the whole picture. GreenReaper 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Thinking that the furry fandom is nerdy is just a generalization you have. I don't think it is. Like GreenReaper said as an example, which I also wanted to say but this user mentioned it anyway, drawing furries is an artistic thing. There may be some similarities but the furry fandom is like a small culture of its own. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I guess this is just one of things where you need someone else to tell you what you look like--Nationalism 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Perhaps. On that note, you look like a single-purpose account. I think we would all value your opinion more if you were actually here to edit articles. :-) GreenReaper 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the porn. NOW.

Archived debate, as it's gone completely off-topic. Feel free to start a new header about the subject of artwork in the article. -- Kesh

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Think about the children! --24.47.71.87 or something like that, 16 Oct 2007, 6:23 PM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Dunno if it would be removed. Why the children would be looking at the term "Furry fandom" or "yiff" in the first place? Any way, Wikipedia is not censored. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia may be uncensored, but I take that to mean that material unsuitable for minors may be included where appropriate; I don't think it's meant to be taken as a license to include adult material in articles just because you can. See my earlier comment regarding WP:PORN and WP:PROFA. Again I would pose the question, does it add value to the article to include an example of adult furry artwork, or is it sufficient to discuss the existence of such artwork? --Mwalimu59 15:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) I'm full of apathy on the issue. My only concern was to check if the art was actually uploaded by the artist. The image is from ru.wikipedia.org, and I couldn't read a word of it, but some google searching leads me to his art galleries, so it seems legit. -- Kesh 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC) I think it does add value, though I would personally prefer a more tasteful example if we're going to have one (something with a background would be nice, too). Of course, freely-licensed trumps better - and it is fairly representative of the average beefcake pinup - but still . . . GreenReaper 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Animal porn is a central part of furry culture, and it should be included. I have the artist's permission for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JollySkUG.jpg to use on Wikipedia. I also got permission for the image of the two Pokemon "yiffing" each other with their mouths. Thanks --72.207.228.114 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) You'll excuse me if I ask around and see if I can find an actual furry image that can be used as an example, rather than something that's basically one step above a stick figure. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC) This looks pretty furry to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gayfurries.jpg I think most furries are gay or bisexual (according to the page) so this seems like the best image to use.--Nationalism 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lasted four minutes. If we must have an image of "furry porn" on the article, I believe the discussion above suggests that it should be more tasteful. That's what we're looking for. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't say that "most" furries are gay or bisexual. There are quite a bit more than in the general population, but straight furs aren't exactly a small minority. --Mwalimu59 09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Less than a third of furries reported being straight--Nationalism 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Actually, in terms of precentages, it goes bi, straight, then gay. So statistically, a furry is more likely to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. ISD 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC) True... If you were to count all of the bisexuals who lean toward gay or lean toward straight as gay or straight respectively, then straight would have a clear majority. The proportion of gays, although quite a bit higher than in the general population, would still have them as the minority. --Mwalimu59 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC) That's the most preposterous argument and twisting of numbers I've ever seen; It's comical. I, using the same logic, could say the exact opposite. Using the very liberal (and suspect) figure of 10% of the general population being homo- or bisexual can then go on to say that a furry is more than six times as likely to be attracted to a member of the same sex as a non-furry. I mean come on now. Over half of the community identifies as gay or bisexual with a further 8% being "undecided". If the shoe fits than wear it. NeoFreak 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Or, you could remain civil and simply disagree. That said, this whole tangent is off-topic. -- Kesh 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC) It's an important topic. Why do furries prefer the opposite gender? Normal people read this page and see all of these crazy facts and they just say, "I can't believe it. This is hilarious!" and furries just sit back in amazement and blame prejudice or bigotry. They just don't see how warped they are from reality. Being gay isn't wrong, but why do animals/homosexuality/Ayn Rand (furries also wrote-in overwhelmingly for "objectivist" when describing their political views) - why do they all come together? Obviously there is some psychological element to it that remains unexplored. Additionally, why is calling someone homosexual in a purely scientific sense "not civil"? Homosexuality is not a stigma on Wikipedia--Nationalism 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) …you completely misread my entire statement. The "not civil" comment was referring to the "preposterous" and "comical" comments. Secondly, this is off topic to the Talk page, as this is only for discussion of improving the article, not the subject. As such, I'm archiving this debate. -- Kesh 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Restructure>

( started by Gnurd 02:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) ) We need to restructure this. its getting out of hand. we should clean up the article and really expand on many things. areas that are less than 1 ¶ need to be removed and a link to their page added to the See Also area. Also, lets make sure that the FIRST thing they see ISNT a guy in a fursuit. if anybody has some good pics from MWFF or FC that arent JUST fursuits, replace them.

Just some thoughts.

Furry POV

The issue of the difference between how furries view themselves and how normal people view furries is the main reason the article has problems. Someone reading this article gets a definite pro-furry viewpoint. The social stigma of being a homosexual, a goth, or a transgendered person is not close to the social stigma of being furry, but this is not addressed. There could be a discussion of "furries in popular culture" with some mention of this to get a more mainstream viewpoint in the article.--Nationalism 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you find a reliable source that says this, then, and add it to the article. GreenReaper 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there several TV shows that did episodes involving furries? And how can I find a reliable source to show that Wikipedia is biased? That's just an inherent function of Wikipedia.--Nationalism 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the ones that are already mentioned in the article? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's written like an advertisement. The reporter "learned" that furries are just trying to prevent inaccurate coverage? The fandom "contributes" millions of dollars to economy? "...most recent coverage focuses on debunking the myths and stereotypes that have been perpetuated" I mean come on. Find a non-furry to write the section.--Nationalism 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That information did not come from furries. It came from city newspapers and TV broadcasts. They are items of record in the mainstream press and not furry POV. --Coyoty 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone in and cleared out a lot of the weasel wording and superfluous information.--Nationalism 08:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The items you removed from the article were not "weasel words". They were the actual subjects of the referring articles. Read the articles before assuming their content. I have restored the removed items. --Coyoty 09:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrases were pro-furry statements that did not contribute to the overall section. You can keep reverting my edits but you'll just drive away all of the non-furry editors. This is exactly why this article remains in this sad state. Just because the article is pro-furry does not mean it needs a summary from the furry viewpoint on this particular section. If it's the very last statement that you feel should be included, then include it, I have no strong feeling either way. --Nationalism 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If you keep reverting POV then you can have your furry project to yourselves, but it will never been an encyclopedic article.--Nationalism 12:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism: Claiming fictional portrayals of furries on TV (i.e., ER, CSI, etc.) are a "reliable source" is dubious at best. There's a big difference between fiction and fact. Hope this clears things up. —Ochlophobia 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a documentary on furries that is in progress, but it should be in the "media coverage" section. http://tv.boingboing.net/2007/11/01/american-furry.html --Nationalism 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a published documentary. It is a work in progress posted to a blog and does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a notable reference. --Coyoty 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a trailer, and has been published on the internet, obviously. The documentary has finished taping, according to its website. It contains interviews with furries and I see nothing objectionable about the furry interviews. Do you?--Nationalism 09:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether it does or doesn't contain anything objectionable; the trailer is self-published, therefore does not meet the reliable sources guidelines. --Rat at WikiFur 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not self published. The website did not create the work. --Nationalism 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to my limited knowledge of Wikipedia policy and the vetting process at BoingBoing I don't know if it meets WP:RS or not. My gut feeling is that it isn't a good source; a trailer for a documentary has the ultimate goal of promoting the documentary, not providing an balanced view of the subject. With the amount of good sources we have available, it don't see any reason to use questionable ones. --Rat at WikiFur 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The documentary, according to that page, has yet to be released. It's not complete. If it's actually released at some point, it may be a reasonable reliable source. Right now, it's not. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see something we can do though. theres no reason to simply sit here and whine like little children -- we could archive it, and then TOTALLY rewrite it from a furry pov. or does this warrant a call for say furry fandom (a furry POV)? if thats whats needed then we have to do that. [ Gnurd 18 nov 2:32 PM -6GMT]

I don't see the purpose of that, except to make a WP:POINT. -kotra (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism's edits

While I believe Nationalism's reasoning is way off the mark, I have to say that the current edits he/she has made do read better (for the most part). I don't think there were any weasel words, but the majority of the changes were minor and simply clarify their sentences.

I inherently disagree that the original versions were "slanted" though, and would urge Nationalism to cut back on claiming editors are promoting a pro-furry viewpoint. We can edit this article without resorting to drama. -- Kesh 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Furry Lifestylers Section

Seems outdated. Delete?--Nationalism 13:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Outdated? How? -- Kesh 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how the topic of a furry lifestyler is important enough to warrant its own section. And reading the section, I barely understand what the heck it means. I think the section should be completely re-written with emphasis on why furry lifestylers are so important to the furry fandom, or be removed entirely.--Nationalism 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's here because it was merged in from an article after an AFD discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Many furs have spiritual beliefs. You might expect these to be separate from fandom activities (most railway enthusiasts do not find God as the light at the end of a tunnel), but in furry fandom they are often at least somewhat integrated, such that (for example) there will be a session on furry spirituality at Midwest FurFest. It is not usually as simple as "I believe I'm really a fox spirit trapped inside a human body", but perhaps closer to "I believe I have an innate connection with the Fox, or the Wolf". There are strong links with therianthropy.

I think perhaps spirituality is a better term than lifestyle, even though that is the name of the newsgroup, because "lifestyle" suggests a different concept. But then . . . it is not just spirituality, but also integrating "furriness" into your daily life. Something like lapism - to some people, to be a furry is to be a different kind of person. That section could certainly get the point across more clearly, but it is a hard point to get across. :-) GreenReaper 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying there are furries that think they really are animals? Or have animal spirits in them? This fetish just keeps getting weirder and weirder...--Nationalism 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be a few furries who truly believe they are animals trapped in a human's body. Come to think of it, I wonder that's actually true or is just an "urban legend" of sorts within the furry community. (And as GR points out, furry is not a fetish.) --Mwalimu59 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what the hell is a "babyfur" and what does it have to do with babies or pedophilia?--Nationalism 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Likely, but not all of them would believe in such a manner. As mentioned somewhere above, they would be closer to therianthropes. Babyfur refers to a baby furry character I believe. TwilightPhoenix 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's not simply a fetish, and not a fetish at all for some - it is, like the article says, a whole subculture based around the concept of anthropomorphic animals. If you think the idea of furry spirituality is bad, consider the people who think they can talk to an invisible person who made the world and who will offer them eternal life. As for babyfurs, see WikiFur's article. The topic was deleted as non-verifiable on Wikipedia, which I would tend to agree with. GreenReaper 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, "babyfurs" are furry fans who are also into infantilism, which as that article points out are seldom pedophiles. I'm not sure there's any more to it other than what the parts of it would suggest (which may be part of the reason it didn't get its own article). There are subgroups in furry fandom for just about any other interest or preference you can think of - amateur radio furs, furry railfans, cowboy furs, military furs, furry bikers, and the list goes on. --Mwalimu59 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Others may stress that since characters portrayed are not human, it is not meaningfully pedophilia. Outsiders often disagree, since the activity still involves actual adults taking an interest in prepubertal persons depicted in sexual situations." Yeah you furries are pretty creepy, but at least you aren't this. Maybe it should be mentioned in the furry article since it's a significant part of furry culture.--Nationalism 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, comes down to finding verifiable third-party references for it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babyfur suggests a lack of them. As far as I know, it is not an aspect that the media has paid much attention to, mostly because they are still on "wow, these guys have sex in animal costumes!" (heh, recipe for heat exhaustion there...), but also because there's only a small part of a small community involved. Like the other crossover communities Mwalimu mentioned, it is not particular well-understood even within furry fandom, though (like furry fandom in the wider community) it comes up more often than you'd expect thanks to its content. GreenReaper 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this discussion getting off topic (again!), it's nearing the point of invoking WP:DNFT. --Mwalimu59 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're being a bit hasty there. They are still discussing the article, which is what the talk pages are for, as opposed to trolling. Additionally, DNFT is an essay and not policy, so there really isn't anything there to invoke. If things are off-topic, you should point to WP:NOT, as in Wikipedia is not a forum. And as per above, Green is right. Information for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not whether they are true or not. TwilightPhoenix 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, again

I have just removed one of two pictures inserted into the "Sex and furry fandom" section, specifically the Max Cooncat image of an aroused male fox. The female pic remaining is a little more softcore (though sticky) and serves as a reasonable representation of yiffy art without being too explicit. Earlier discussions indicated that the male pic was too over the top as well. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• tnx for explanation. i will try to remove idem picture from ru:Йифф --Berserkerus 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, both of those pictures appear to be up for deletion on Commons. Bah. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Porn

Are you kidding me? Why's that up there? Is it like people might not understand what you're talking about? Jesus; that's vomit inducing.24.86.144.101 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the editors here who are furries think the article is fine without an adult image, and the ones who have been trying to include one in it are not furry fans. The past discussions are here in the discussion and its archives. --Mwalimu59 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally couldn't really care either way; the only issues I've got with this is that if we have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it, and if we don't have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems silly either way... I made a misguided comment earlier but have since removed it having overreacted and assumed my whole thing to be deleted. It's not like I spend a lot of time looking up this article, but it seems to me that it's there for shock value mostly - which isn't really the purpose of an encyclopedia, or Wikipedia, for that matter. 24.86.144.101 05:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see plenty of complaints about the inclusion of softcore porn imagery in the article by moderators and visitors, but can you point to a balance of complaints by moderators that softcore porn imagery was absent from the article beforehand? There isn't any. This article is quite possibly the most visited destination for people to learn about furry fandom. Exposing those visitors to softcore porn imagery is neither in the best interests of Wikipedia or those learning about the fandom, especially when the textual information clearly sufficed. Pornography does not add value to this article. - Rigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.103.70 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally concur with removal of the image. It was added largely at the behest of a handful of visitors who insisted the article was biased or sanitized when it didn't bear out their preconceived notions about furry fandom. As others have noted it does less to convey an accurate impression than to add gratuitous shock value. In fact, I think I'll go ahead and remove it. --Mwalimu59 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Let's hope the complaints both directions trail off. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That type of art exists. We should not pretend it does not.Geni 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is pretending that it doesn't exist. The article makes quite clear mention of it. However, the inclusion of particularly only that image (or a similar one) as representative of artwork in furry fandom is misleading and unbalanced reporting in the article, based on points already established in the article. --Dajagr 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is however in the Sex and furry fandom section and thus isn't claiming to be representative of the wider area of furry art.Geni 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for the only representation of furry art to be that intended for mature audiences. However, there is no denying that pornography/erotica is a significant and popular component of furry art - though not (as some would claim) the majority. I suggest finding some good quality non-pornographic art, obtaining the appropriate licensing, and adding it to the other sections of the article, in addition to that which is here now in the section about it. Looking (logged-in) at Fur Affinity, a clean to naughty to dirty ratio of about 6:1:1 seems appropriate. In reality eight pieces of furry art seems excessive unless we are talking about have an article about furry art, so perhaps three pieces of clean art and one borderline naughty/dirty piece would be better (the current one seems representative of this level, though I wouldn't preclude something higher-quality replacing it in the future). GreenReaper 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Second this, though I would suggest distilling it further to one clean, one naughty/dirty. Yes, I realize that this is stretching the ratio quite significantly, but I don't think the page needs four images. --Scani 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen furries deny attending furry conventions, furries that deny having animal spirits, furries that deny owning a fursuit, but you furries had better not deny you enjoy this strange porn. I understand that you don't want people to have a negative image of you, but people need to be exposed to the truth about furries.--72.207.228.114 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's denying that some enjoy it - though unlike fursuit ownership, convention attendance or spiritual beliefs, I'm not aware of any surveys published by reliable sources on the topic. However, having such a picture as the sole representation of drawn furry artwork is misleading, because it implies that the majority of furry art is pornographic when it is not. That doesn't mean we should avoid such images completely - which I think would be a denial - but to say "well, we need to show the others as well". Only then will people have the whole truth. GreenReaper 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. A simple Google image search for "furry" will show that the majority of the results are of a sexual nature.--72.207.228.114 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "the most linked images" with "the majority of images". Still, even there, it falls apart - after the first couple of pages most of the results aren't even furry artwork, but pictures of random people or items. "Furry" by itself is a poor search term. "Furry art" (with the quote marks) gives about the proportion I described above before falling apart like "furry" does. Try actually looking at the uploads on a general-purpose furry art site like Fur Affinity or the VCL (historically viewed as an adult site, but even here the majority is clean). GreenReaper 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The furry editors here obviously know enough about furry culture to say that "most" furries disagree with the MSM's view of them, but when it comes to their hidden passions they take a vow of silence.--72.207.228.114 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"People need to be exposed to the truth about furries"? People, stop throwing food. This is getting tiresome. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll the furries, here. If they tell the truth a large majority will admit to have viewed pornographic images of animal/human hybrid "furries" for a sexual reason.--72.207.228.114 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"If they tell the truth"? Sounds a lot like you've decided what the answer will be before you asked the question. :-) Wikipedia has too small and narrow a sample of furries to be valid, anyway. Try asking UC Davis to include it in a followup survey. Make sure they ask the control group if they've ever viewed pornographic images of humans for a sexual reason. GreenReaper 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TonyFox. Furry fandom is no different than sci-fi or anime, and those articles don't have porn images even though there is plenty of adult material available in those genres. There's no reason to single out furry fandom for special treatment by including it here. I think someone's just trying to create controversy where there is none. Nobody's denying adult material exists, but the sexual aspects of furry fandom have already been covered extensively (too much, IMHO) in this article. —Ochlophobia 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In those cases the core art is officialy produced and rarely contians erotic images. It would be posible to argue that if we had an article on comics in the first part of the 20th century it should include a Tijuana bible image (you can bet they were published without copyright notices.Geni 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Official art and images for fandoms like Star Trek and Star Wars may rarely contain erotic images, but that's not the case when it comes to fanart, parody art, and so forth that are widespread within those fandoms. And I'd be surprised if anime doesn't have at least as much erotic art as furry fandom, if not more, including a good deal of official authorized works. Even if most such works are unauthorized and in violation of copyright and/or trademark, it doesn't change the fact that they are part of the respective fan cultures. I concur with what others have said here - furry fandom is no worse than any of these other genres when it comes to having an adult side. To portray it otherwise on Wikipedia would be to mischaracterize it and to propagate the sort of inaccuracy we should be trying to dispell. --Mwalimu59 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Star Trek and Star Wars fanart isn't nearly as significant as the official stuff. As for anime we have an articles on Hentai, Yaoi, Yuri (term), Shotacon, lolicon and Shōnen-ai.Geni 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And we would have had one on Yiff, except people felt the need to merge it into this one. I notice that both anime and manga are surprisingly free of graphical depictions of any of the above. Indeed, even among these articles, only hentai has anything that might really be called objectionable - and that's a 19th century woodcut. Apparently the discussion of this kind of thing on Talk:Lolicon spanned six pages. GreenReaper 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

unindent> since the article has been merged that means you get all the content that would have been on yiff unless it is unmerged.Geni 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it sounds like you're trying to include original research into the article. Also, all the examples you've given except hentai have no erotic images in the article. Why do you think furry fandom should be singled out for special treatment when including erotic images in most every other example you've given is the exception and not the rule? —Ochlophobia 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

unindent> see WP:NOR#Original_images. Aditionaly a case could be made that in most of the the articles I linked to erotic images could have issues under the PROTECT Act of 2003. This is not the case will the image under consideration in this article.Geni 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't address my previous statement. Furry fanart isn't as significant as stuff produced by Warner Brothers/Disney either, you're trying to hold it to a different standard than Star Trek and Star Wars fanart. The anime and sci-fi articles don't contain erotic images. This article should be held to that same standard. You still haven't given a reason why you think furry fandom should be singled out for special treatment. —Ochlophobia 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because in effect everything in furry fandom is fan art. where as star treck/ star wars are dominated by the art of the companies that made the films/TV shows and fan art is rather secondary (or given the expanded universe tertiary).Geni 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that some work of furry art would probably be a good addition to the article. What we're disagreeing with is that it should be an adult piece of art. (And just to be clear, furry fandom is not just about art; there are a lot of other aspects to it as well.) --Mwalimu59 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

However the image was in the Sex and furry fandom section where a non errotic bit of art would make little sense just as it would make little sense in Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum.Geni 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Geni's statement that everything in furry fandom is fan art is incorrect. Furry fandom is about the appreciation of anthropomorphic animals, including mainstream furry stuff such as that which is produced by companies such as Disney/Warner Brothers. Geni still has not provided justification for why this article should be held to a different standard than the articles on similar fandoms—such as sci-fi and anime—which do not include erotic images. —Ochlophobia (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As others have said here, the rationale you've presented so far has been pretty unconvincing. Maybe a good compromise here would be to use an image that is less adult/erotic but still suggestive. I think that would be sufficient to make the point that adult art exists without having the shock value or the "in your face" aspect of the current one (as well as being a good compromise image if the 3-5 images per some earlier discussions is not feasible). Regardless, the current article needs a better rationale. --Mwalimu59 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

unindent> do you have such an image (note the existing image has already been toned down)?Geni 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm might be something in this cat on commons.Geni 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Took a look there, and didn't really see any that would work. I've seen dozens of images on various websites that would fit the bill but to use any of those they'd have to be properly licensed. --Mwalimu59 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am 17 and find those two pics fairly hot :D and probably do other teens and children. Anonymous

Interesting, if not incredibly irrelevant. I'm glad to see that it's been replaced with something more tasteful, however 24.86.144.101 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [OP]

Criteria for being a furry

Furries here generally deny looking at furry porn, deny wearing the fursuits, deny attending conventions, etc. What exactly do you guys do that makes you a furry, if you don't do any of the stereotypical stuff? Is it simply being a geeky young white male that has a "fursona"? Is there some way to diagnose furriness?--72.207.228.114 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "Furry fandom is a fandom distinguished by its enjoyment of anthropomorphic, often humanoid, animal characters." Stereotypes are often wrong, so trying to define something based on stereotypes is a bad idea. (And for the record, I'm not geeky, I'm not terribly young, Ive been involved in the fandom for more than ten years, I've been to one convention, never worn a fursuit, and have no problem with furry porn, or human porn, though my preference in artwork is for *good* art rather than naughty bits. Stereotypical? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That definition is too ambiguous. Children enjoy Bugs Bunny, but no reasonable person would call cartoon-watching children furries.--72.207.228.114 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A furry is someone who might take what's considered a "more than healthy" interest in Bugs, and might want to be him, be with him, or have sex with him.--130.39.131.105 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your once again incorrect viewpoint, User:Nationalism; any particular reason you re-signed as an IP here? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the comment was made by a co-worker, and not me. There's no need to be angry at the mainstream American's view of furries, because that's what it is.---- Nationalism (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The furry fandom is barely a blip on the mainstream radar. Your co-worker's comment is off-base. -- -- Kesh (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're making an incorrect assertion there. What we're saying is that you don't need to do all or any of those things to be a member of the furry fandom - they are not essential to it. This topic was covered a while back:

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 ... 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 . . .

What really matters is that there is a clear and sustained interest in anthropomorphics, in whatever form. You could in theory call a child a furry fan if they enjoyed the cartoons because they had people who were also animals in them. In practice we do not tend to classify young children in this manner because their interests are thought to change frequently. As for the cartoons, I guess most people watch simply because they find the situations within them funny. The fact that they have anthropomorphic characters is incidental to their enjoyment. GreenReaper 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was a child, I couldn't STAND shows that only had humans in everyday situations. For me it either had to have sci-fi or some non-human character. I watched Lassie, but not The Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, or Happy Days. I watched Alf, but not Punky Brewster... until they added Glomer. I preferred Thundercats and Silverhawks to He-Man and the Masters of the Universe I read Isaac Asimov's robot stories over and over again, but never once read The Hardy Boys. Furry is a part of my overall sphere of interests, tied to my fascination with nonhuman characters. --BlueNight (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, furry fans are people who like anthropomorphic animals. That's it. You don't have to look at furry porn to be a furry fan. You don't have to wear a fursuit to be a furry fan. You don't have to go to furry conventions to be a furry fan. Or as Dr. Cat once summed up, "You don't have to be into the 'argument addiction' fetish to be a furry fan. Furry fandom isn't about arguing, it's just something some fans happen to have as a side interest that has no relation to furry stuff." The only thing necessary for being a furry fan is appreciation of anthropomorphic animals. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand. —Ochlophobia 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's probably because it's often portrayed as just a specific interest. It's as if reporters going to a sci-fi convention said "here are these people who dress up like Klingons and want to become them" and left it at that, with no mention of the literature or artwork that got the majority of the people there in the first place (I'm sure this still happens sometimes). That's how you get surveys that ask for the number of fursuits owned and don't have an option for "0" - the box that 82% of people eventually ticked. GreenReaper 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What furry literature? Is there a furry language similar to the Klingon language? --72.207.228.114 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From the literature article: "works of art, which in Western culture are mainly prose, both fiction and non-fiction, drama and poetry." So basically stuff like Watership Down or the Redwall series of novels. As for furry languages, Foxish is the only thing that comes to mind, but at only nine words, it's a bit limited. ;) —Chaos386 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

More than enough to create a turing complete programing language.-- Geni (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remaining Professsional

Guys, this is enough. The vast majority of "facts" on this talk page have no evidence to back them up, whether pro- or anti-furry. A huge discussion, so far, is about whether ALL furries are sexually interested in anthropomorphic animals. If anyone can find good, independent, reliable sources to prove this true or false and meet the criteria for a verifiable source, then it can be acknowledged as plausible fact one way or the other. As people within the fandom claim that they are not sexually interested in anthropomorphics, we have to accept that as a possibility, with no other research or verifiable source to say otherwise. If you believe differently, then you can express your view about it elsewhere.

That being said, the presence of erotic art is not necessary. The mere phrase "erotic art" is enough to give a reasonable mental image, as long as an image of high-quality, non-erotic art is on the page to give the reader an idea. And, while Wikipedia should not be censored, it should not be needlessly objectionable, either. The Phoenix 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As per furry Tonyfox's request, the sentence "The convention, which contributes $2.5 million to the Pittsburgh economy, plans to return to the city every year 'for the foreseeable future'" is biased. The phrase "which contributes $2.5 million to the Pittsburgh economy" is biased because it is intended to show the good that furries do, but it has nothing to do with the section "Media Portrayal".

While I recognize that furries get little good press, to slide this phrase in shows the article's pro-furry bias. Just because a fact is true and is mentioned in a reputable source does not mean it belongs in the article.--Nationalism (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the sourced fact into the Conventions subsection. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a good move. I think it just showed why the businesses in Philadelphia tolerate the furry conventions, but I can see where the fact can seem biased towards the furry fandom. I think that is appropriate for the conventions subsection. The Phoenix (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only do they tolerate it, the Pittsburgh Convention and Visitor's Bureau specifically asked Anthrocon to come. I have notes from a panel on starting your own furry convention held yesterday at Midwest FurFest 2008, where Uncle Kage spoke about the time a five-member team from the Bureau "just happened" to be passing, invited him out to dinner, and asked him if Anthrocon had considered their shiny convention center. He asked them if they knew what furry was, and they showed him a three-ring binder filled with printouts of furry websites. Now, it is important to take the convention head's words with a grain of salt, but it seems clear they're good for business. Apparently dealers like furry cons too. GreenReaper (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Furry Lifestyler

If I am correct in what your definition of a furry lifestyler is, I think we can add this video as a "See also". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnUDSBonub8 --Nationalism (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be appropriate, really. It may illustrate a (somewhat extreme) example of the concept, but there's no indication that the man featured is aware of or has any connexion to furry fandom at large. --Dajagr (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

103%

48% reported bisexuality, 25% reported heterosexuality, 19% were homosexual, and 8% were uncertain. Additionally, 2% stated an interest in zoophilia, and fewer than 1% stated an interest in plushophilia.

there something wrong

I've tried rewording it. It is meant to say that out of the 100% of people who took part in the survey, 2% also expressed an interest in zoophilia and fewer than 1% an interest in plushophilia. ISD (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)