Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old talk page

Positive modern pagans vrs. old school scary pagans

...look primarily upon the positive aspects of the faith, while downplaying the more serious, traditional aspect,...

Aarrggh, are you saying that the traditional, serious part is negitive? I sure you don't intend to, but that is how it sounds. (Sadly I have no better suggustion yet for a replacement word for "positive" except perhaps "flaky" or "New Age" but with the Wiki's definition of New Age, i'm not sure that word really works. Thoughts?

How about something like "...look primarily upon the positive and uplifting aspects of the faith, while downplaying the more serious and negative aspects,...". Rather than casting aspersions on any 'traditional' approach, it would just emphasise that the 'fluffy bunny' looks only at the light, not the shadows. Mind you, all I know about is the marshmallow thing... Basswulf 10:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IMO (as an outsider) modern new age wiccanesque "pagans" are more like hippies playing holloween than witches, whereas authentic pagans are like this, this, or this. Call me a what you like, but I grew up where wicca was extremely popular, and I think I know the subculture pretty well. I darn sure was never scared of them putting a "hex" on me or whatnot, the scariest thing about them was their fashion sense. Sam [Spade] 23:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those would be the "fluffy bunnies". Or, if you prefer, the Cowans. --Morningstar2651 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all of this is just a silly attempt by some pagans to be scary and spooky. Most of the anti fluffy people I've come across are either republicans, mansonites, or general right wingers. Of course, being an atheist, I have a much more elightened view on these things.Kittynboi 10:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How does being an atheist give you a "more enlightened view on these things"? --Morningstar2651 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the term almost always derogatory, more than humorous? 24.130.132.83 04:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We should find some examples of it being used light-heartedly. All of the links at the moment are critical ones. Jkelly 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammar Cleanup, Cite sources for Stregheria paragraph

Corvun, are we going to go over this here as well? Some of your grammatical changes were indeed good ones, for instance your change of "Neopaganisms" (you're right, this sounds too much like acaddemic jargon) to "Neopagan religions", which I preserved.

I note that you have not responded to my concerns on the talk pages of Talk:Stregheria and Talk:Aradia (goddess), but I thought that I would let a cooling period of a week go by, before replacing the disputed tag, and removing this "syncreto-Pagan" phrase you want to use.

I encourage you to engage in more good grammar cleanups. But please, please start citing your sources. WP doesn't need more unsourced claims throughout the articles on Neopaganism! Also, please stop calling me a "troll" in your edit summaries. Instead, assume good faith. Jkelly 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're encouraging grammar clean-ups, why are you reverting them? (You could have easily reverted to the grammar clean-up made in a separate edit, removing only the new paragraph you claim to take issue with, but chose to revert the clean-up as well!) These head-games and inconsistent behaviors aren't appreciated. Cite sources for what? This is an issue of slang, or at best jargon, within a minority group. I doubt there has ever been -- or will ever be -- a scholarly research paper or book published about the use of the term "fluff bunny". This is an inherrently and solely anecdotal issue. Were it not for this erradic, unpredictable, and mind-bogglingly zealous behavior, I might take your edits more seriously. So far all I've seen from you is wild and outlandish claims coupled with extreme pedency over trivial issues that you don't even seem to have taken the time to think out in a rational manner. This is insane. Please stop trolling here. --Corvun 08:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

(Other users will note that I responded to this troll's "concerns" on Talk:Stregheria three days before 02:14, 21 -- this troll is being blatantly dishonest while asking that others assume good faith.) --Corvun 08:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Corvun, your response here is a model of informative and welcoming communication as compared to our previous interactions, and I appreciate the effort. Let's take a look at what I think are our two points of disagreement:

1) Citing sources -- If you honestly think that there is no way to verify the information in this article, we should discuss sending it to AfD as unverifiable. I don't think that's the way to proceed. The phrase has enough web presence on semi-influential Neopagan websites that it's possible to describe its usage with citations to those websites. That's where I left the article after my major clean up to it. I don't want to see you putting in commentary on Pagan, Voodoo, or Stregheria uses of the term without similar verification.

2) Grammar -- As I mentioned above, I preserved some, but not all, of what you labelled your grammar clean-up, as it introudced some new information into the article. I'm sure that we can do better, as you made some other fixes I missed (such as moving that comma), that I absolutely should have preserved as well. I apologize for being too quick with the revert, and with this edit, I will attempt to preserve your copyediting. Jkelly 17:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Willful ignorance

Interesting that seshen.com is cited as an external link, yet there is no mention of the article about willful ignorance, which is the concise definition for "fluff" used in many Pagan circles (e.g. LiveJournal's "nonfluffypagans" community). -- SwissCelt 14:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "no mention in the article". Since one of the references in the article specifies this narrower definition, it probably is appropriate to have it in the article. I'll insert it. If you'd like to contribute to this article, you should feel free to be bold when you have a reference right at hand. Jkelly 23:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Justification for restoration of page

The page history for this article only goes back to 27 March 2008, when it was re-instated as a redirect for the chubby bunny game.

Formerly it had been deleted , on the basis of vandalism, and firstly in 2006, due to concerns about notability and sources.

However, the Internet archive record for the page shows that prior to deletion it had existed in a basically stable form for three years.

The current version of the page now again covers same subject matter as previously; but is not a simple reversion to the former page. It now includes a link to a disambiguation page for other uses of the term, and has been completely rewritten to address the concerns about sources. The sources now referenced also provide a strong argument for notability.

There is however; still room to expand the article to include a discussion of the trends in Wicca that led to the coining of the term - as well as the significance of the term in relation to the wider context of historicity within wicca.

Josephus (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior Use

I'm not a Pagan or Neopagan, but I have found an earlier use of the quote in a magic-related sense. In the Vertigo (comics) series "The Books of Magic" issue #39 (August, 1997), a scene involves Tala (a Queen of Evil) coming to Zatanna for advice regarding her boyfriend, Tannarak. In the story, Tala dismissed Zatanna's disliking to her actions, saying, "What do you know about the imperatives of darkness? You've never seen past the shadows." Zatanna's reply was, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one with the problem?" After Talia was silent Zatanna's response was "So quit bashing my fluffy bunny worldview. It's all that's keeping me from stealing your hat." I'm not sure if this would fit into the article (It could be Original Research), but I just thought you might like to know.Orville Eastland (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The adjective "fluffy", which is also used in much the same sense (as a noun, as well as as an adjective) is used in this sense since at least the late 19th C. (OED). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.81.124 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluffy-bunny Christianity

The term has spread beyond Neopaganism and is increasingly applied in Christianity to imply that some Christians are theologically fluffy. If anyone is interested, I can find some sources. Thanks and regards. 38.100.35.16 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

An explanation of some irrelevant edits

Some time back there existed (and may well exist) a group of facebook that satirised the tendencies described in this article (and hence called themselves "fluff bunnies" as part of the satire. Some members of this group got into an argument about whether certain works were plagiarised. Those accused of plagiarism accused this group of bullying, especially after one of the books was pulled by its publishers due to large scale plagiarism. Some of the stranger edits to this page of late would appear to be due to supporters of one side or the other in this argument, but in neither case are they of any relevance to the topic in hand. The last one actually editted one of the quoted pieces, and quite apart from this turning the quote into a mis-quote, substantially changed the opinion stated in the quoted piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.160.33 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

As cited above, this page was previously deleted due to notability issues, amongst other things. Perhaps it is best suited for a dictionary but not an encyclopedia. The deletion discussion was by consensus last time. The reposting of this is by and large nearly the same content. And whilst the argument that 'it had existed for three years before' was given, it in no means justifies the reposting of a deleted article. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I ended up declining this because the version we have here is different enough from the version deleted back in 2006. The article is longer and there are also more sources here than there were last time. Given that the standards of notability has changed since then, it would be better if this got re-evaluated at AfD. I'm not entirely sold that this term needs its own article at this point in time, but I don't feel comfortable speedying this when there's just enough here to where someone could argue that they tried to add more to the article to allay the concerns at the 2006 AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge information

Alrighty, since there seems to be a consensus to merge into Wicca somehow (I'm leaning towards Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010 now), I thought it'd be good to figure out which information and sources to include in the article. This sort of thing can get sort of pointy, so I want to work out the neutrality here and get that out of the way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here's what I came up with:

Several pejorative terms such as "fluffy bunny" or the "old lady brigade" have been used in the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan community to describe adherents that they view as superficial or faddish. Common descriptions given by people using the term include elements such as the practitioner deliberately choosing to emphasize goodness, light, eclecticism and elements taken from the New Age movement over elements seen as too dark, as well as the practitioner appearing to follow the religion as a fad. The term "fluffy bunny" became more prevalent in the 90s after it was used to describe a depiction of the Wiccan religion in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The show, which featured a Wiccan coven, raised ire from practitioners of Wicca, who believe that the coven in the group reinforced stereotypes.

In any case, that's what I have so far. I included the Christie Golden source, as she's considered to be a fair authority on the BtVS stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)