Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Furry lifestyler article

Someone has recreated an article to replace the redirect that was put in place after an AFD in 2006. I've questioned whether an article should exist or whether it should be included in this article on Talk:Furry lifestyler, but thought I'd mention it here as well. I don't see how a lifestyler article could possibly stand alone, myself, and would encourage replacing the redirect. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with reverting it to the redirect. It looks to me like all the user did was to lift the relevant section out of Furry fandom into its own article (even the previously reverted version is arguably better if we're going to discuss recreating the article). I've gone ahead and reverted it to the redirect. --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought I'd ask before I did anything precipitous, as work travel has melted my brain. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an argument that we need more coverage of the "community" aspects, separate from "fan activity", but since fandom is itself defined as a subculture this is still the best place for it. GreenReaper (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't seem to locate the (Contents Box) to add, 21 to it. Main Article has This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (May 2011) I don't know if I speak for everyone or not on this, but I am unsure if any of us, would really refer to ourselves as (Experts) Truthfully, what would it actually take, to be considered an (Expert?)

Please Someone, Add To This..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fievelmousekewitz1970 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Example picture

The example picture is Zoomorphic, not Anthromorphic. Please fix article. Zoomorphic is a human with animal traits. Anthromorphic an animal or object that's personified with human traits. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term is "anthropomorphic," not "anthromorphic." Secondly, according to several dictionaries, "anthropomorphic" means "represented with human characteristics or under a human form"; "having or representing a human form." The idea behind the character is not a human given animal characteristics (zoomorphic) but vice versa. —Dajagr (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikifur Link exclusion

WikiFur is as pertinent as EncyclopediaDramatica, made-up infos, no privacy for artists or members involved on the fandom, why is there still a link about it there? the intentions of WikiFur's staff are only to spam any furry/anthro-related site to promote a certain group of furry porn sites and fetishes. That's no information and even less as social or art site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.24.19 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed WikiFur's personal exclusion policy. I'm also confused by the accusation of promotion; the site promotes everything furry - that's why it has articles on, say, Furocity, and does not use nofollow. Conversely, Wikipedia is not intended to promote websites, and that's why the link you added was removed . . . which I think is the real issue here. I'm not anti-Furocity (and nor is Mwalimu, I'm sure) - just this month I suggested some changes to the site owner that led to speed improvements. But given Wikipedia's external link policy, it's hard to justify mentioning it here when it's only just come out of beta, and offers little over similar community sites while having perhaps 1/50th of their traffic. I've added it to the Open Directory's adult furry art section instead (like Fur Affinity and Yiffstar, it cannot go in the main section as it contains mature works). GreenReaper (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He has a point, though. Those people running WikiFur are anti-mundane. --67.183.17.14 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't everybody? ;-) GreenReaper (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Really. In arguments, WikiFur always sides with the furry. That, in case you haven't noticed, is not right and really isn't link material from such a venerable site as Wikipedia. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear what "arguments" you mean, but perhaps part of the issue is that a) like Wikipedia, we're not all that keen about uncited derogatory information about people, and b) most of our articles about people are about furries. GreenReaper (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. WikiFur is most definitely not link material. Any articles on any furries are whitewashed and any info that doesn't show a furry in a positive light is censored. How convenient. Like ED, no citations are made to back up articles. Plus, I don't think we're supposed to link to other wikis anyway. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use wikis as references. Linking to them is fine as long as they are directly pertinent. WikiFur is website about furries. ED is a website about a bunch of things, of which furries are a fraction. If, for the sake of argument, we consider them otherwise equal in terms of accuracy and useful information, ED's coverage of furries is still narrower than WikiFur. And, since we can't include links to every website that talks about furries, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply think that linking to such a website gives the impression that WikiFur is unbiased and is okay to cite things from. They allow furries to do whatever they want with articles about themselves. Not only is that what I feel is the flat-out worst way to run a wiki, I and other information junkies out there would repulse at even the thought that Wikipedia would endorse a site like that by linking to it as a direct information source about the subject.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "endorsement", nor does linking to it imply it is a reliable (or cite-able) source. If Wikipedia considered it a reliable source, it would cite it as a reference, not link to it as an external link. The only statement Wikipedia makes about websites by including them in external link sections is that they contain further information about the topic that is beyond the scope of the article. Wikipedia isn't endorsing Fox News or Taliban by simply linking to their websites, it's only providing relevant resources. -kotra (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

KFG, your statement is inaccurate. We don't allow individuals to "do whatever they want with articles about themselves." Like Wikipedia, we do not forbid individuals from participating as editors; as a practical matter we know it is impossible to prevent them from editing, and we'd rather they do so under their own name than that of a sock puppet. GreenReaper (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if WikiFur is unbiased, (It most DEFINITELY isn't) there are much better and more informative sites to link to. As for the claim that I lied about your policy of letting furries editing articles about themselves, to quote one of your admins, "it's up to the article's user's how he/she/hir/it likes to be referred in paper, electronic media or real life". I don't know about you all out there, but that sounds a lot like allowing furries to do whatever they want with articles about themselves. Please stick to the topic, (that "not forbidding" statement was totally unrelated) and do your homework before lying to my face, Reaper. Thank you. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your tone is bordering on personal attacks and incivility. If you're going to continue this discussion, please keep it objective and diplomatic.

One of the objectives of the Wikipedia furry fandom article is that it should include links to additional resources for readers who would like to know where to go for additional information. Frankly I'd be hard pressed to recommend a better source than Wikifur, but you're welcome to recommend others you think may be better, or at least good enough to be worth including in the Wikipedia article. The Wikifur articles about general topics have been worked on by numerous editors and improved over time, and a lot of the content is the sort of thing that's well-known based on numerous people's personal and anecdotal experience but which has seldom or never been independently documented in a manner that would stand up to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The articles are not sanitized or intentionally biased, except insofar as some types of controversial or derogatory information (particularly about individuals) is held to a higher standard of verifiability and sourcing. One situation we run into both there and here is that people come along with a preconceived notion that the portrayal of furries in places like CSI and Vanity Fair is basically accurate, and when they find the articles don't bear that out, they think the articles are biased.

With respect to the particular quote you used here, it was taken out of context from a discussion about someone's gender identity and a decision by Wikifur admins to allow people to go by whatever gender they choose to self-identify as rather than their legal or physiological gender; it was not intended to be a broad policy statement about Wikifur as a whole. I also noted that you (or someone using your name) was a participant in that discussion and it makes me wonder if you brought the discussion over here because you have an axe to grind. If you have issues with how a particular article or incident was handled on Wikifur, the place to deal with it is there, not here. --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Concurragementiosisage with this guy here. You won't get nowhere contradicting the rules like this. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I start typing, I would like to say that Kaizer13's statement did not appear to make sense. Anything clearing up his comment would be appreciated.

What I said on that site was unrelated and I have no bone to pick with GreenReaper beyond what is being said here. My main concern with WikiFur is that on numerous occasions they have failed to tell both sides of the story on numerous articles and establish what is known as an NPOV that is REQUIRED here at Wikipedia. Seeing WikiFur's failure to grasp such a concept makes me wonder why a site like Wikipedia is linking to a site like WikiFur, indirectly implying that the wiki is an unbiased NPOV-based source of information endorsed by Wikipedia editors, because if they didn't endorse the site and it's activities, they probably wouldn't have linked to the site in the first place. I know and you know that the site doesn't even claim to be unbiased, but a venerable site like this linking to WikiFur gives that impression. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikifur is inappropriate as a inline citation (user-generated content makes it an unreliable source) and as an external link (per WP:ELNO point 12). At best it could be mined for sources, if they are reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." (emphasis mine) This describes WikiFur, no? It has a history of stability, a large number of editors, and is not a mirror or fork of Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to imagine a world where WikiFur is stable. Then again, I'd like to imagine a world with a liberal-run Fox News, a majority of Mac users over Windows users, and World Peace, but it just ain't gonna happen. WikiFur endures attack after attack from groups like Anonymous and the Patriotic Nigras. Then again, the rules' definition of stable is a very broad definition, and interpretations vary. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it such. 12,500 pages isn't that much, and at some point I did an analysis of wikifur (I believe it was for the vorarephilia page) and it came up short, with a stagnant editing history, dwindling number of editors, and a topic that in general resists reliable sources because there isn't much research on it. The stats don't really impress me. But if you're really curious, bring it up at WT:EL or a WP:RFC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He's right. It took a good 15 minutes for me find a page that included citations to a reliable source. (e.g. One that isn't a blog, FA profile, or wiki) I would like to ask Wikipedians out there: Is that really link material from such a prominent site like this? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging a WikiFur article by the presence or lack thereof of citations is missing the point. While Wikipedia relies on the reflected authenticity of those it cites, WikiFur relies on the expertise of its editors in a narrowly-defined field. Where Wikipedia is a tertiary source, WikiFur is often a secondary or even a primary source. Where Wikipedia rejects original research, WikiFur embraces it, on the basis that other editors are sufficiently qualified to challenge inaccurate material. Where Wikipedia editors might read a news report on a furry convention, WikiFur's editors are writing it while in the audience at closing ceremonies, or counting the fursuits in the parade as they pass by.

Take our timelines of charity donations and convention attendance. As it happens, most figures are referenced to external sources (for conventions, on the relevant articles), but many of these sources would not be considered suitable for Wikipedia - not because they are untrue, but because the average Wikipedian lacks the ability to verify their accuracy. Conversely, WikiFur's editors are able to evaluate such primary sources - just as any good journalist can write about their beat.

Now, do all of our 12,500 articles provide a useful resource for readers? Of course not. That is a judgment that editors should make on a case-by-case basis for all external links. Some Wikipedia articles are as good as or better than their equivalents on WikiFur, in which case it makes little sense to link them. Other WikiFur articles have real value to readers, offering details and context beyond that which Wikipedia can hope to provide, and should be linked.

As for the "waves of attacks", I hate to disillusion you, but this has not been the case for the past four years. We get petty vandalism from time to time, but this usually affects articles about non-notable people and often comes from those close to them. We run a recent changes monitoring channel for all wikifur.com-hosted languages, and our admins are more than capable of dealing with such issues as they arise. GreenReaper (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Partially echoing GreenReaper's comments, the points about WikiFur's lack of citations to reliable sources would be well taken... if it were used as a source. But Wikipedia is not concerned about what method an external link uses to verify its information. There is nothing in our policies and guidelines, as far as I have been able to find, that restricts external links due to their method of verification; nor is it standard practice. Let's keep in mind that external links are merely online resources where further information (reliable or not!) can be found, and we place very little qualitative judgment on them. Does it diminish Wikipedia's integrity to include a link to Weekly World News's website, or the Taliban's, or Fox News's, in an external links section distinctly separated from the references? If the answer is no then why would WikiFur be different in this case, as it is certainly a useful resource for readers seeking more information? -kotra (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaper, my little droog, you need to understand some things:

-Linking to the site is just going to lead to furries claiming that the site should be citation material. Let's not set a chain reaction.

-There are much better pages documenting the furry fandom in a concise and NPOV-based manner. Let's try Googling the term and see what comes up, and check if it's a reliable source.

-Based on what you said is your site's policy on original research, if there was a WikiFur page on, say, Soda Pop, then I could go ahead and take the Pepsi Challenge and subsequently claim that Pepsi-Cola physically tastes better than Coca-Cola, which, by your logic, can be presented as fact on your Wiki. Again, is a site like that link material? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be deleted; it's not within the topic of the wiki, and we wouldn't consider ourselves qualified to judge its accuracy. As for conciseness, you miss the point - external links are intended to provide more information than that article they are attached to. Here there is a need for conciseness, to the point that many details may be excised even if they are verifiable. On WikiFur, such details would normally remain, making it a useful resource for readers who wish to know more. GreenReaper (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

KFG, if I saw WikiFur used as a source in Wikipedia, I would personally remove it. Open wikis are not allowed as references, period. It's written into our guidelines. You don't need to worry about that hypothetical scenario. Furries can claim it's citeable all they want (though most of the furries I've seen on Wikipedia would know better), but they would be going against broader consensus and they wouldn't win. -kotra (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, WikiFur isn't a valid source, Just look at this article http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Wolfee_Darkfang .It says this guy was hacked, but the only thing it cites is his personal site. And this article has no citations http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/YouTube_Furry_War Neither and this only has one source that is cited twice, http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Yiff How can a website that cites like this be a reliable source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.95 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, we reverted you . . . that's surely a factor in our favour. ;-)

Of the three articles you mentioned, Yiff is the only one which I can ever see linking (though Wiktionary covers common usage), and I'd probably want to clean it up first. Still, despite the poor formatting, to the best of my knowledge (and the knowledge of our other editors) everything on there is true. This is what matters to us, and ultimately it's what matters to most readers, which is why such articles may be useful to link on a case-by-case basis. GreenReaper (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not being used as a source. We aren't disputing that WikiFur is an unreliable source for Wikipedia to cite. We are discussing whether or not to include it as an external link, which is very different from a source or reference. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why reverting me is a point in your favor. This I.P. address does belong to I.P.S. also known as "The Rebellion" which is a group against trolling and other such things, yes I did make the edit that you reverted. I could not cite a source as whyweprotest.org deleted my thread soon after a person on it admitted to trolling furry sites. Also, as for an external link I think it should be added then, since it's a link and not a citation (Thank's for pointing that out I didn't see it at first), that Wikifur technically isn't hosted with the wiki chain of sites anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.95 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That reverting comment was totally unrelated and off-topic, Reaper. Basing a claim that your wiki is 100% accurate and correct on the testimonies of your cohorts is just plain crazy. Linking to a site that fails to create ANY NPOV-based or citation-based documentation in addition to reverting all edits that go against the beliefs of the owner or his cohorts (or even the subject, in the case of Wolfee Darkfang) is flat-out unacceptable for a site like this. I understand that WikiFur is not being used as a source. But if we link to it, we might as well do that. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "external links don't need to be reliable to be included" are you not getting? Why is it so very terribly important that we don't have an external link to WikiFur? What is your interest here? I note on your user page you're "here to help clean up Wikipedia from misinformation on subjects like Furries, Anonymous, Second Life, and the Church of Scientology" - what is it about a couple of external links, included in Wikipedia articles that are based on reliable sources, threatens you so? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is on my user page is totally irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that WikiFur is not the best source for furry information and there are better sites. We should link to sites that are stably establishing a Neutral point of view, a category which WikiFur definitely doesn't belong to. While reliable ELs aren't required, I and a lot of people out there feel they have an obligation to place pertinent, accurate, and NPOV-based information portals up. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. What, in your view, would those NPOV-based information portals be, considering that the links to WikiFur are not intended to act as reliable sources but as further information references? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This. A quick glance does not reveal the common (and very dubious) claim that most furries do not take advantage of the sexual aspects of the fandom (look/draw/fap to sexually suggestive pics, participate in fursuit sex, et al.) seen in many furry-owned and operated websites. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Remind me again how this is an argument against WikiFur, which has a whole category devoted to paraphilias? (Incidentally, the site you linked is the personal website of Anthrocon's operations director, who is also a WikiFur administrator.) GreenReaper (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point being.... --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're saying it's a better site to link to because it does not make a particular claim. It's unclear how your reasoning applies to WikiFur, which not only does not make that claim, but has numerous articles dedicated to such topics. GreenReaper (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree with Reaper on this one my friend. You're reasoning and logic are the exact oppsite of their definitions. You have stated that WikiFur's unstable condition as well as the fact that it is biased is thebasis for you claim that it shold be removed. Not to say that what I have said is not true, BUT, it is just ANOTHER SOURCE. If I were to post a yiff artwork site as a citation, then it would technically fall under your interpretation of a non-biased citation. I say this because such a site (though admittedly vulgar and out-of-bounds) has no true opinion on Furries or any other fandom. It is simply there. I hope this was relevant to the topic at hand, but i simply had to put forth my opinion on the matter. I.Am.Silver.Fox (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Zooanthoropomorphic

Shouldn't all the instances of "anthropomorphic" and "zoomorphic" be replaced with "zooanthropomorphic" ? Not all furry beings are animals with human characteristics (anthropomorphic) or human with animal characteristics (zoomorphic), the pattern is beings with both human AND animal characteristics.--TiagoTiago (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because "zooanthropomorphic" isn't a word. :-) "Anthropomorphic animals" is the correct term. GreenReaper (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to google for "zooanthropomorphic" and after you read a good sample of the search results re-evaluate your opinion about "zooanthropomorphic"s status as a word. --TiagoTiago (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There's zoanthropy, but that refers to a human being with animal characteristics, not an animal character with human characteristics. FireWolf Flux (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA material?

With improvement to the history and lead sections, anybody think that the article will pass GA? If not, could you share on what else needs to be improved? RP9 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think the sources aren't good enough. Many (most?) of them are on the border of reliable source criteria at best, and there are still a few useful, important, but uncited statements that could be easily challenged. We know this is not an easy problem to fix, though, as what we normally consider "reliable sources" (third-party, independent published works with a solid reputation for fact-checking) don't usually cover this topic (and when they do, often do it poorly). But this is just my view; GA reviewers may be more lenient. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I should qualify the above by mentioning that I do think it is very close, though. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The last GA review was a little more than a year ago and a lot has changed, except quite noticeably the history section. Perhaps I could review the article as if it was a GA review just to get an idea of what sources are lacking, what needs expansion, further explanation, etc. RP9 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the sources swiftly. Many of them seem fine. Certain statements that use multiple examples to seemingly "prove" their validity need to be worded differently or use a different source. Such as "While most of this fan-created art is distributed through nonprofessional media[<-- need source here], such as personal websites,[12][13][14][<-- these are just links to personal websites] some is published in anthologies, by Amateur Press Associations, or in APAzines.[15]" There are some weaselly statements here and there as well. Nothing that can't be fixed reasonably though. My concern is finding good sources on the more recent history of the fandom. RP9 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could try here for a start. GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yiffstar link again

I feel that the Yiffstar link should be removed from the page. Werewolffan98 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about Werewolf but I'd argue that primarily only links that further explain and provide information about the subject should be linked, otherwise it would seem to breach WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. So this would apply to any furry art site, although I'm sure VCL and FurAffinity are significant to the fandom and I really have no idea about Yiffstar, they do not provide any useful information about the fandom in general much less any information beyond what the article currently has. It might make sense to link to maybe one of the art sites per "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." RP9 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be FA, as it clearly has an edge in size and traffic. I've cut Yiffstar and the VCL; they are both represented on the adult ODP page, which I've linked. GreenReaper (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have the link, please?--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the external links section. GreenReaper (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexual aspects

Since the whole thing is just a big fetish, why include a "sexual aspects" section instead of re-formatting the entire article to reflect more accurately what it truly is? Someone who's new to the subject may even think it's not a sexual thing, and think of it as an alternate lifestyle instead of a variation of zoophilia.201.231.75.153 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the case of the article. It did started out as a certain culture before it started being exploited for its sexual tendencies. That wouldn't sound neutral for the furry fandom, since you want to limit the idea of a furry fandom to the sexual amterial and not the entire culture itself. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But it, in fact, isn't. I don't know how many furs out there will get turned on by pictures of Krystal from Star fox, nor do I know exactly how many participate in fursuit sex, and I will admit that many of them do, but to say every furry in the whole entire world is into that kind of thing is totally incorrect. Those of you who'd say "But that's the average furry's retort! You must be one of them!" would be correct, but hear me out. Being a fur myself, I go to numerous websites surrounding the fandom. Of all those people, only a few would ever even consider the things you accuse us all of doing. I think Wikipedia should be a source of fair information that includes everyone, from the freaks to those with a mere interest in something. Opinions? --74.78.193.84 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are most definitely many Krystal fans among furries, only a small fraction of fursuiters engage in fursuit sex (probably in the single digits, percentage wise, though I don't know of any surveys on the question or how reliable they'd be if someone attempted it), not even what I'd call a significant minority, and even that is before factoring in that only about 15-25% of furry fans are fursuiters. I think the commenter who started this section may be someone who came here with preconceived notions about furry fandom, and upon finding that the article doesn't bear out their expectations, they would rather assume the article is wrong and biased than consider that their preconceptions might not be very accurate. Either that, or he's simply trolling. --mwalimu59 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the current results from the 2010 Furry Survey gives a rather solid representation of the fandom and percentages on some of the questions raised herein. Silverseren^C 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While it might be WP:OR to include it, as a non-furry I find the results of that survey quite interesting - particularly the finding that the majority of respondents said sex was of low importance to them compared with the rest of society. Perhaps the sexual aspects of the fandom have indeed been exaggerated by us 'norms'. Robofish (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the survey is already used as a source in the article, in the second to last sentence. I was just putting it here as a response to the originator of this section, as an example of various beliefs and viewpoints of the fandom. And, as a furry, I would say that, yes, you norms exaggerate things about us a lot. :P Silverseren^C 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully nobody has to guess anymore, as two extensive theses conducted the appropriate research.

• Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
• Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).

The sexual aspect and negative self-image are, demonstrably, prominent aspects of the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to access the Morgan paper. It is apparently not available to anyone outside the network where it is hosted.

The Altman paper I did read, and a few things immediately jumped out at me. Furry was only one of three fandoms the paper addressed. It started off with a definition of fandom that many furry fans would not concur with, at least with anything approaching universality among furry fans. And then he states at one point that none of the furry fans personally interviewed have been to a convention, which in itself makes me doubt whether they're a fair cross section.

In the section that focuses primarily on sexuality in the fandom, I picked up first a tendency to present the sexual pervasiveness in a somewhat hypothetical manner, then in the foregoing material treat it as given without giving adequate supporting evidence. Most of what he does present seems to involve focusing on those aspects, then extrapolating them to imply they apply to the fandom as a whole. Or maybe I read it wrong and he's NOT trying to make that extrapolation or any consequent of sexual pervasiveness. Finally, he covers a lot of other territory about these fan groups and doesn't spend that much of the overall paper focusing on sexuality, enough to give me a sense that citing the paper just for that part of it is cherry picking. --mwalimu59 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the abstract and stopped. He is insinuating that all three groups, furries, otherkin, and otaku, have their fandoms revolving around personas that are "previous lives". Why is he saying that we're all Otherkin? The previous lives thing only applies to otherkin. I have never even heard of anything to do with previous lives applied to otaku and anime. Previous lives of being a cartoon character? He is already completely discredited in my mind from that abstract. Silverseren^C 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your "let's keep the sex part hush-hush" attitude vastly undermines the NPOV of this article. The papers discuss the "definition" of furry, note all of the same grievances you note, and move on. The paper you accessed discusses fan-fiction--"The dominant form of fan fiction that I encountered was carnal in nature and unapologetically explicit in execution", "vast amount of sexualized fictions", "Sexuality plays an extremely visible and equally indivisible role within the Furry", "the pornographic body of the fandoms researched is, by nature, anthropomorphized, ontologically tied to an objectified, sexualized body. In this fashion, the pornography serves as a lens to interpret the gender performance of the imagined persona", etc, there is no cherry picking--as well as interviews with furries, and synthesis with prominent sociological research. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Over one-hundred interviewees were formally and/or informally interviewed during the course of this study" - Morgan, Matt. A research thesis with over one hundred interviews, from the Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work department of a state university exceeds the reliability of nearly all of the other references in the article, a large portion of which are the same "personal essay" type references which was reverted when I tried adding it. Apparently no one's word is good enough for you that the furry fandom is a prominently sexual fandom. This is the glaring NPOV issue with this article. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the Morgan article is unavailable to me (and presumably to most of the general public) so I can't comment on it. As for the Altman article, it appears to me you're trying to take a viewpoint that represents only a specific subset of furry fans with two other fandoms in the mix and attempting to portray it as an accurate representation of the fandom as a whole that should be prominently featured in the article. Sorry, I'm not buying it. --mwalimu59 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I expect you not to buy two master's theses, the clear dominance of porn in furry art sites, the clear dominance of erotic stories in furry fiction, and the clear hyper-sexualized nature of nearly all fursonas. "At least on the Internet, [furries] are delineated by specific sexual practices; these practices are related to the [furry, otherkin, otakukin] subcultures and are detailed in a later chapter." - Altman. "delinate - describe or portray (something) precisely" - OED.

Both papers note that the furry community is an umbrella term and composed of individuals with varied inclinations, and yet both papers find a large, significant, defining portion of the fandom to possess self-image issues with the "real" world (leading to an idealized, sexually empowered fursona) with a significant emphasis on sexualization. This emphasis on sex in the fandom is denied by you ("I'm not buying it"), glossed over in the article, and in general swept under the rug by furries.

These two papers show the blatant NPOV problem with this article, which is edited by furries to minimize the significance of sex in the fandom. They will never "buy" the sex angle because it embarrasses them or otherwise puts them in a bad light. The prominence of sex within the fandom is obvious. It is obvious in the ONLY two academic sources [edit: there is another academic source, and, surprisingly, it deals with sex. -Furry-friend (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)] in this article. It is also obvious in Furries From A to Z, yet editors choose not to cite the relevant passages.

There is a NPOV problem in this article with relation to sex. When I tried adding a source not-less-reliable than most sources in the article, which supports the "furries are centered around anthro narrative and sex", it was reverted. The only solution I had was offering rock-solid references. They are most likely the best in the article, and yet "you don't buy it". That's a NPOV issue. -Furry-friend (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As to your third academic source: Unless I miss something, "furry sex" is mentioned once, in passing, while the paper itself is actually about BDSM and Second Life. This just shows how desperately you are trying to connect everything sexual with everything furry. --Conti|✉ 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not my source. -Furry-friend (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a source, and my point remains. --Conti|✉ 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here it is: Sexual Interactions. It deals with BDSM and not furry. I have no issue with discarding it, it really dwarfs in the face of the two other academic sources. Your point about the marginality of that reference remains. The real point, that the furry fandom is not prominently about sexuality and this is some sort of personal opinion of mine, is false. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I read the "Sociological and Psychological Aspects" section. Then I went to the two links that are the cited sources supposedly backing up that section. The first source, the document is unreadable and the abstract of the document is pseudoscience about mazeways. The second source, is off subject and does not assert what the wikipedia page claims it does. Based on that, the section "Sociological and Psychological Aspects" should be removed, one source is unreadable and likely false, the other source is off subject. --TiroGrande (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your reasoning, but not the conclusion. You can't really judge the validity of an article by the abstract, and not being available online is not the same as being unreadable - you can get a copy from the library where it is stored, so it is verifiable. It isn't pseudoscience, either - Wallace's revitalization movements is an established anthropological approach, and feels like a valid approach here. And the other article says pretty much what was claimed in the WP article.

That said, both papers are Master's theses. While that is fairly reliable, they aren't particularly reliable sources - a Doctoral thesis is a better choice due to the assessment process, and we're not told how the two went. So I wouldn't be comfortable using them on those grounds. More importantly, though, the wording in the article here was overly close to the original sources, raising copyvio concerns. Thus I don't have a problem with removing the paragraph. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same about your reasoning and conclusions as you do about mine, we agree on the conclusion but not how we came to it. I believe that a master's thesis can be as valid as a doctorate thesis or any research used to make a publication. However, my problem with the first one was not with the revitalization included, but the inclusion of the pseudoscience of mazeways in a document that cannot presently be read to be verified by anyone. My problem with the second link is that it does not in fact reach the same assertions as the statements on the wikipedia page due to context, even though it was a verboten copy and paste page lift the context still changed the meaning. In the article linked, the article persues the very specific sexual practices of very specific subsets of three otherwise unrelated groups. One of the conclusions lifted from this paper, free of it's context and transferred to this wikipage, appears to assert the conclusion which applies to some furries, some otherkin, et cetera, as applying to all furries with no mention of the unrelated groups. An extremely specific study of an extremely specific subset of three otherwise unrelated groups cannot be applied to the whole of one group. Based on the first source being unreadable and including pseudoscience, and the second being off subject, out of context, or however one wants to see it, neither was valid, whether doctorate or not.--TiroGrande (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Material which is challenged or likely to be challenged should be covered by a reliable source. A masters' thesis is not a reliable source unless published in a peer-reviewed journal or similar. The first one is not available to the public at all. The second has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and is specifically listed as "unpublished". GreenReaper (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

sexual aspect of furries

I tried to add the fact that furries often have a sexual paraphilia for anthro animals to the opening paragraph, but was threatened with a ban by silver seren.

wtf is that about?

Doktordoris (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For further reference, this section is about this edit and my reversion of it. I put a standard template on the above user's talk page regarding defamation. Still not entirely sure if that was the correct one to use or not or whether I should have used one of the others. I mis-took the edit to be malicious in nature, which is why I ended up using a Level 3 template. Since this does not seem to be the case, I believe now that I probably should have used a Level 1 or 2 template. However, I stand by what I said here, in response to the question on my talk page. Silverseren^C 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I too am sorry for the hostile nature of my post above.

I have no axe to grind. I just think for the casual reader, as I was 10 mins ago, that the sex aspect is an important thing to mention.

Sorry silver, I meant no offence.

Doktordoris (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for being tense in my responses. We've had too many other IPs and users attempt to vandalize the page and so I jumped straight to the thought that you were trying to add that sentence for malicious reasons. Clearly, this is not true, so I apologize for that. As for whether sexual aspects are really that important to the fandom, you may wish to read the above section and other discussions in the past here and, especially this one, here. Silverseren^C 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

tish and bibble silver, no matter.

thanks for responding like a gentleman, I meant no ill and after learning that the page is a common target for hostile edits and vandalism I entirely understand your initial response.

toodle-oo

Doktordoris (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Furrydom and Furdom

While I really, really hate the BBC article, this uses both furrydom and furdom, so we should be able to use it as a reference for the alternate titles in the first line, right? Silverseren^C 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because they don't get it right doesn't mean that we have to follow suit. --Conti|✉ 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm wanting to use that source to reference the alternate names of the furry fandom, where there's currently a "Citation needed" tag. Silverseren^C 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that we should include those terms in the first place, since they are - if at all - used extremely rarely. Not to mention that the article calls a fursuit a "fur suit", which is just blatantly false. Doesn't make me trust the source too much. --Conti|✉ 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the terms outright. The alternate terms redirect to this article anyway. ^GB86 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New image

As good as she looks, I don't think the vixen representing the fandom should have dyed hair/fur. It should be more natural, so she can represent the fandom in a more general sense. Not to say to revert to the greyscale version, but perhaps stick to red, orange, brown, and white. — Supuhstar * § 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

True, we're not trying to represent the fandom as ravers. :P Silverseren^C 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll replace it with the older version until someone comes forward with a more reasonable coloring. — Supuhstar * § 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Osaki survey

Hi! Funfi [removed] the data from Oaski's surveys. It was properly reverted, as there was no explanation why, but I think that data warrants removal. I'm concerned because it is both a primary source and unreliable. The main hassle is that it is a web-based survey, with no limitations on who can complete it. This opens up a few problems, most notability gaming and selective bias. This seems likely as well, given the massive change in figures from the 2002 data - to go from 2% claiming an interest in zoophilia to almost 20% in just six years suggests a massive change in the community over a very short time or a significant problem with the data collection in one of the two survey tools, and I'm strongly leaning towards the latter. Anyway, I think we should probably just kill anything relying on Osaki, as the data is too unreliable for our purposes. - Bilby (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if 4chan gamed the surveys. Because, I agree, some of the results on there do not make much sense. Silverseren^C 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the survey in relation to the sexual aspects and the identification as human, but left it in place for all the less controversial claims it was used for. If there's a problem I won't object to someone reverting and we can discuss it further. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that plushophilia has consistently been polled as being 1% or less in the fandom, any poll that comes up with a 9% figure should be seen as clearly biased in some manner. And the 6% for the Otherkin was also very high. I'm not sure what the correct percentage is for Otherkin (furries who consider themselves to not be human at all), but I would expect it to also be around 1-2%. We definitely don't want misinformation like that in the article. It would just perpetuate the stereotypes about the fandom. :/ Silverseren^C 05:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex Osaki here. Can you source "consistently been polled as being 1% or less in the fandom"? The single source I've seen on that has been from David Rust's survey on the fandom, which is 12 years old now, relies on a very small sample, and was conducted in person. This is probably also why Rust's survey suggests a ludicrously small zoophile prevalence — well below the 10%–15% associated with the commonly cited Alvarez study for prevalence in the general population. The 7% figure for plushophiles in the fandom currently posted in the 2010 Furry Survey accords exactly with Kyle Evan's 2008 refresh of Rust's work. The 17% figure that Evans gives for zoophiles is also much closer to the 2010 survey's range than it is to Rust's somewhat dubious numbers. Removing it because you don't like the implications of the numbers seems questionable to me. Demographic analysis is part of my job description, and while in three years of running the survey there's been lots of hemming and hawing about how the survey is being gamed, there's been no credible evidence that this has ever actually occurred. The data are consistent over the last three years, they are consistent with other recent surveys, and suggesting that there has been some organised effort to sabotage four separate surveys strains credibility. That being said, I'm all for removing the survey data on OR grounds. 75.149.57.209 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On a furry stereotype-

I've never edited a wikipedia page before, but I'd like to put my two cents in. The zoophilia stereotype actually originates from a pornographic website called zootube, to make it short the members on the pornographic website think that bestiality is "furry". Pretty much if the website went down there'd be no more stereotype calling furries zoophiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.67.206 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally wrong. The stereotype was around far before zootube was even thought up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

History - ie hunting more historic references

Hi there,

I believe I've seen an article from a fanzine (Mimosa) that possibly reprinted an article from an older zine, Rowrbrazzle, that would extend the history section's chronology. If you have good archives you might want to investigate these. Otherwise, I'll dig mine up and provide a citation. My name is Justin Semmel aka Juzbunny, available c/- email redacted. Feel free to contact me anytime on that topic.

Mimosa began publication about 1984.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.199.73 (talk • contribs) 09:22, February 18, 2011

Hi Juz! I'm familiar with Rowrbrazzle, but I don't think it'd work as a reliable source to quote on Wikipedia. It's a fanzine, which generally won't count, I'm afraid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Babyfur Link

Could we please take out the link to babyfur on wikifur? I know it may be argued that it complies to linking to another wiki policy, but I didn't know I was going to end up on wikifur, and read the page assuming it was wikipedia... The page felt a bit too instructional and I was kind of ddisgruntled I ended up there without knowing it.

I don't mind if the link stays, but if there's any way to make it clear we're leaving unbiased pages then I'd prefer we use that. 24.137.120.159 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've marked the link as being to wikifur. This should eliminate the surprise at no longer being at Wikipedia, but might or might not be in line with Wikipedia's policies on interwiki links... if we have one. (Edit: wp:Wikimedia_sister_projects is relevant but not specific.) BitterGrey (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikimedia sister projects page has nothing to do with this, as Wikifur has nothing to do with Wikimedia. --Conti|✉ 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Fringe of Queer

The source in question, Cameron Lindley Cross (2006). "On the Fringe of Queer" (PDF)., is an academic paper and a personal essay. The introduction is a personal essay, the rest is an academic review. There are plenty of unsourced statements to remove from this article; don't remove statements sourced from an academic paper simply because you want to minimize the mention of sex. When an entire section is devoted to furry role-playing doesn't make a mention of sex, and an entire section devoted to furry art and literature doesn't mention sex, there's clearly a lack of NPOV. The academic paper happens to mention this tendency of furries to gloss over the sexual aspects.

In any case, the paper is academic. -Furry-friend (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Needless to say, none of these have been published anywhere except on my site, and then more as a record of my interests and development than as anything I would want to be quoted on." I'm sorry, but that clearly fails WP:RS. --Conti|✉ 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." - WP:RS. This disqualifies Wikifur, Alex "Klisoura" Osaki's survery, alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ, and many other sources cited in the article, perhaps they are less reliable and should be removed too. Additionally, much of the sources are actually links to websites, which consist original research, for instance: "Furry artwork is also available through websites devoted entirely to furry art produced by multiple artists [links to websites]". A researched, cited, academic paper is more credible than such statements and other non-researched, non-cited sources. -Furry-friend (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your last statement is entirely correct. The thing is: the essay you cite is not an academic paper. It has neither been published in any reliable source, nor has it been peer reviewed. It is just as reliable (or unreliable) as all the other sources you're mentioning in your comment. --Conti|✉ 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by using two peer-reviewed papers. Please give the same care to removing other bad references as you did to this one. -Furry-friend (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better. Although, to be honest, your initial attempt to use the essay gives the impression that your focus is not so much on using good sources to make a good article, but instead on making the article lean towards your personal viewpoint. Regardless, if you think that there are other bad sources used in the article, feel free to remove them. Personally, I don't see a compelling reason to remove weak sources as long as they support uncontroversial facts (like the existence of various conventions), but you'd certainly have a valid point in demanding better sources. --Conti|✉ 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a sexual aspect to the fandom, and there is a section of the article that addresses the sexual aspects of the fandom. It is unnecessary and misleading to shoehorn sexual issues into sections of the article intended to discuss other aspects of the fandom, as doing so implies that sexuality is much more pervasive in furry fandom than it actually is. In Anime fandom there are sexual aspects and adult material, enough that some said that furry fandom has got nothing on anime fandom in that regard. Are you going to argue that anime fandom should be treated similarly? --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, here you go, two other academic papers--peer reviewed, masters theses--emphasizing the sexual nature of the furry fandom. I honestly think there's a POV problem in this article, as it is being purged of "accusations" of sexuality. The entire sexuality section is actually devoted to denying these "accusations". -Furry-friend (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly "denying" as much as marginalizing, in the following section about public and media perception, along with the glaring omissions from the roleplaying, art, and literature sections. -Furry-friend (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Source

• Gurley, George. "Pleasures of the Fur." Vanity Fair. March 2001.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Already in the article, under "public perception". -Furry-friend (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference review

• Press
  • Staeger, Rob (July 26, 2001). "Invasion of the Furries". The Wayne Suburban. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
  • Kurutz, Daveen Rae (June 17, 2006). "It's a furry weekend". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 2006-06-30.
  • Winterman, Denise (November 13, 2009). "Who are the furries?". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 2009-11-29.
  • Larson, Alina (January 23, 2003). "Animal Instincts: Fans of Furry Critters Convene to Help Mankind". Tri-Valley Herald (ANG Newspapers). Retrieved 2009-05-20.
  • "Furries Descend On Pittsburgh". KDKA-TV. June 16, 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-02-01. Retrieved 2006-06-30.
  • Irwin, Charles; Watterson, Summer (April 24, 2002). "A 'furry' tale for a foxy college student". The Olympian. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  • Gaudio, Greg (August 23, 2008). "Lions and foxes and cat-dragons walk on two legs in Beach". The Virginian-Pilot. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
  • Mitchell, Don (March 23, 1995). "From MUDs To Virtual Worlds". Social Computing Group, Microsoft. Retrieved 2009-11-06.
  • Howells, Shelley (October 1, 2002). "Secret lives of strange and furry". The New Zealand Herald.
  • Werner, Christian. "Och, sind die süüüüß!" (in German). Zeit Online Zuender. Zeit Online. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
  • Peralta, Eyder (May 28, 2006). "In Second Life, the World is Yours". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-08-13.
  • Brandolph, Adam (June 28, 2008). "Furry convention a $3 million cash cow for city businesses". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 2008-07-04.
  • Stuttaford, Thomas; Godson, Suzi (December 8, 2007). "I like dressing up as a bear during sex". The Times (London). Retrieved 2007-12-11. (further details)
  • Meinzer, Melissa (June 29, 2006). "Animal Passions: The furries come to town — and our correspondent tails along". Pittsburgh City Paper. Retrieved 2007-05-25.
  • Loaded magazine. March 1998.
  • Gurley, George (March 2001). "Pleasures of the fur". Vanity Fair.
  • Baldwin, Denis (August 2006). "Walk With the Animals: Local furries explain it's not about perversion, furpiles and plush". Ann Arbor Paper. Archived from the original on 2007-02-04. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
  • Belser, Ann (June 18, 2006). "All about 'furry fandom' at confab". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2006-06-30.
  • "We're at it like rabbits". The Sun. 3 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
  • Togneri, Chris (July 6, 2007). "Furries purr over Pittsburgh reception". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 2007-07-14.
  • Meinzer, Melissa (February 2, 2006). "Fur Ball In The Works". Pittsburgh City Paper. Retrieved 2007-05-25.
  • Abel, Jennifer (November 1, 2007). "Hell Hath No Furries". Hartford Advocate (Advocate Weekly Newspapers). Retrieved 2010-06-19.
  • Winterman, Denise (November 13, 2009). "Who are the furries?". BBC. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  • "The Brewers Meet the Furries". Deadspin. July 6, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
  • Parry, Laurence (July 17, 2007). "Anthrocon 2007 draws thousands to Pittsburgh for furry weekend". Wikinews. Retrieved 2009-11-06.
  • "Furry Convention Creates Wild Scene In Pittsburgh". WPXI News. June 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-04.

• Furry publications
  • Patten, Fred (February 2, 1999). "Chronology Of Furry Fandom". YARF! The Journal of Applied Anthropomorphics. Retrieved 2006-07-15.
  • Patten, Fred. "The Yarf! reviews". ANTHRO. Retrieved 2007-09-24.
  • Patten, Fred (2006). Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction. ibooks.
  • "An Overview of Selected Furry Fanzines". The Furry Animal Liberation Front (FALF). Archived from the original on 2008-12-02. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • Riggs, Adam (2004). Critter Costuming: Making Mascots and Fabricating Fursuits. Ibexa Press.
  • Parry, Laurence (January 17, 2010). "2009 charity donations down; $470,000 raised this decade". Flayrah. Retrieved 2010-02-02.
  • The Chained Wolf (December 18, 2008). "One Fur, One Vote: The Politics of the Fandom". FurteanTimes.com. Retrieved 2009-05-06.[dead link]
  • Parry, Laurence (24 November 2010). "Fur Affinity loses AlertPay account, bans cub porn". Flayrah. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
  • "Award Winners 2009". Ursa Major Awards. May 3-, 2010. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  • TheChainedWolf (2010-03-14). "Ursa Major Awards 2009: predictions and forlorn hopes". FurteanTimes.com/Flayrah. Retrieved 2010-11-11.
  • "Award Winners 2003". Ursa Major Awards. Retrieved 2007-11-09.

• Other publications
  • Sandler, Kevin S. (1998). Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation. Rutgers University Press.
  • Gerbasi, Kathleen; Paolone, Nicholas; Higner, Justin; Scaletta, Laura; Bernstein, Penny; Conway, Samuel; Privitera, Adam (2008). "Furries From A to Z (Anthropomorphism to Zoomorphism)". Society & Animals 3: 197–222.. doi:10.1163/156853008X323376.
  • Editor in chief, Craig Glenday (August 7, 2007). Guinness World Records 2008. Guinness. p. 123. ISBN 1904994199.
  • Padva, Gilad. Dreamboys, Meatmen and Werewolves: Visualizing Erotic Identities in All-Male Comic Strips. Sexualities 8:5 (2005). 587–99
  • The Commodore 64/128 RoundTable (1994). "Interview with Joe Ekaitis". Retrieved 2007-01-12.
  • "2001 Winners and Nominees". Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. 2001-02-19. Retrieved 2007-12-04.

• Personal essays, personal websites
  • Anthrocon.org. "What is Furry". Retrieved 2008-06-19.
  • Stamper, Chris (March 29, 1996). "Furry Muckity-Muck". The Netly News. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
  • "alt.lifestyle.furry - Frequently Asked Questions". May 8, 2001. Retrieved 2006-08-26.
  • David J. Rust (2000–2, based on data 1997–98). "The Sociology of Furry Fandom". Retrieved 2006-8-26.

• Internet surveys
  • Alex "Klisoura" Osaki. "Furry Survey". Retrieved 2008-08-08.
  • University of California, Davis Department of Psychology (May 5, 2007). "Furry Survey Results". Retrieved 2007-05-05.
  • Kyle Evans (2008). "The Furry Sociological Survey". Retrieved 24-03-2011

• Academic master's theses and papers
  • Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
  • Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet". Retrieved 21-03-2011.
  • Bardzell, Jeffery, and Shaowen Bardzell. Sex-Interface-Aesthetics: The Docile Avatars and Embodied Pixels of Second Life BDSM. Indiana University, 2005.

• Sites that are used as references for original research in the article
  • The Furry Art of TaniDaReal - a personal artist website
  • Toonapalooza! - a personal artist website
  • Screwbald.com, Blotch: Art of screwbald spotcat - a personal artist website
  • Fur Affinity - a furry community website with unmoderated all-ratings art and story archives
  • VCL - an unmoderated all-ratings furry art and story archive
  • ArtSpots - a quality-moderated PG furry art archive and forum
  • deviantArt - an art community website
  • "Games". Right Brain Games. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • "Earth Eternal home page". Sparkplay Media. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  • "EverQuest II Home page". Sony. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • "Vanguard Home page". Sony. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  • "WoW -> Info -> Races". Blizzard. Retrieved 2009-11-06.
  • "Final Fantasy XI home page". Square-Enix. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  • "Final Fantasy XI home page". Square-Enix. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  • "Art Spots". Retrieved 2010-11-27.
  • FurNation furry community
  • WikiFur
  • "FurNet IRC network". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  • "Anthrochat IRC network". Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  • "About alt.fan.furry". Google Groups. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  • "List of furry LiveJournal communities". WikiFur. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  • "Macrophile online community". Retrieved 2009-3-26.
  • "Pregfur online community". Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  • "Eka's Portal". Retrieved 2009-3-26.

• Media
  • "Fear of Commitment". ER. NBC. 2001-03-05. No. 20, season 7.
  • "Fur and Loathing". CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. CBS. 2003-10-30. No. 5, season 4.
  • "Mama Told Me I Should Come". The Drew Carey Show. ABC. 2002-10-21. No. 6, season 8. See The Drew Carey Show on WikiFur for more information.
  • MTV. "Sex2K Fursuit Video". Retrieved 2006-08-26.
  • "The Day Fuckers". Entourage. HBO. July 28, 2007. No. 7, season 4.
  • "Death Over Easy". 1000 Ways to Die. Spike. February 8, 2009. No. 4, season 2.
  • "Emanuelle Goes to Dinosaur Land". 30 Rock. NBC. 2010-05-13. No. 21, season 4.

• Wikis
  • "Timeline of conventions". WikiFur. Retrieved 2010-02-02.
  • "News:AAE bans Softpaw from Further Confusion 2008 over legal fears". WikiFur. 2008-01-21. Retrieved 2009-05-06.

The entire list of sites used for original research should be the first to go. How do I request an official review? -Furry-friend (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. You could ask for a third opinion or start a requests for comment. Both will get you hopefully neutral editors to look at the issue. --Conti|✉ 10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how to do an "official review" myself, but I just wanted to note that if we're going to be going over the references and adding new ones, feel free to use the [Timeline of media coverage] over on Wikifur. It's not complete, obviously, but it's got a significant amount of links to news articles that might be of use. Oh, and one thing I would like to point out, I don't think a convention website (Anthrocon) counts as a personal website. It's a bit more official than that. Silverseren^C 10:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see an effort to improve referencing. :) However, it is worth keeping in mind that the strength of a reference should be in proportion to the strength of a claim: some claims don't need peer-reviewed papers, and some self-published sources are perfectly viable when they are used to reference themselves. I'm also not sure why you have included all of those references as supporting original research - the comics awards, for example, are being used to support a claim that web comics have won awards. For this they seem viable. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, those are very weak claims that don't need independent sources. I revised the list. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another internet survey added. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again I have to question the decision to remove two academically researched sources while personal essays, internet surveys, and user-editable websites remain unchallenged. Surely there are worse sources in this article that deserve the same scrupulous attitude. -Furry-friend (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has stopped you from doing anything about these questionable sources. If anything, such efforts have been encouraged. The issue is that you are trying to use their presence to justify the insertion of dubious material, with the purpose of aligning this article with your beliefs.

As for "academically researched", it's worth examining what that means in this context. We don't know for the first one, because it isn't available. Eric Altman's thesis - for an MA in English - raises several red flags. The work is based on interviews with ten people over the course of a month, just four of whom are identified as furry. None had ever attended a convention. The author's source of interviewees is not specified beyond "forums and other points of community interaction"; their most-referenced source appears to be Eka's Portal, a site dedicated to the fetish of vorarephilia, not furry in general. Their criteria for choosing interviewees is unspecified. The interview's questions and full replies were not made available.

The work was signed off by Drs. James Ivory (who chaired the thesis committee and the department of English), Jill Ehnenn, Tom McLaughlin and Edelma Huntley. Of these only Jill appears to have anything close to relevant experience, and that is in the area of queer literature - not furry fandom (or, for that matter, otherkin or otaku fandom). The point of referencing academic work is to include expert knowledge, but this work's author is not an expert on this topic, and their work has not been reviewed or published by experts, hence it is considered unreliable (both by editors here, and elsewhere). GreenReaper (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Furry fandom references and NPOV

First there is the issue of references, an extensive amount of them is used to back up original research, though they are not controversial.

Second is the issue of NPOV concerning sexual aspects, where furries try to minimize the significance of sexuality in the fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, some folks are trying to exaggerate the significance of sexuality in the fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, ridiculous. Before my edits, there were no mentions that sexuality is central to the furry identity or the furry community, and the entire sexuality section was marginalized. It still is.

"the furry identity is based on a synthesis of idealized concepts of childhood culture and reactions to negative self images developed during adolescence, and that this is most evident in the sexual practices of many furries. The sexual practices of the fandom represent an attempt to redefine individuals through the merging of childhood iconography with sexual empowerment and other desired traits". This is perhaps the most defining characteristic of fursonas and the furry community in general. Its prominent sexual fetishistic subculture is "highly sexualized and invested in producing and consuming pornographic fiction." And, the quote that was deemed "unreliable" by another editor: "The furry fandom revolves around two key aspects: the first is the textual and artistic narration of subjects who blend human and animal characteristics; the second is sex." Attack the last quote all you like, but the other quotes are from Master's theses, and as you can see from the reference list above, they are perhaps the most reliable references in this article. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with HandThatFeeds in that this seems to be an attempt to exaggerate the importance of sexuality in the fandom. What I and I suspect other editors here who are involved in the fandom are trying to do is to give sexual aspects an appropriate level of coverage based on our personal experience as members of the fandom. I've been to several furry conventions and have been active in online communities and websites for more than 10 years so I think I have a pretty good feel for how pervasive sexuality is in the fandom, and it seems to me you're trying to push sex, sex, sex in the article in a manner that is out of line with what actually goes on. There are no doubt some in the fandom who would concur with you but to my observation they are in the minority. The Altman article in particular seems to place a heavy emphasis on furry fans who believe they have some sort of internal or spiritual connection to a particular animal, and yes, there are some like that, but the majority will tell you that to them, furry is just a fun and entertaining hobby and at the end of the day they're human. I don't accept that the conclusions he draws based on the specific subgroup of furry fans he addresses in his thesis can be generalized to apply to the fandom as a whole. --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bad that, being ten years in the furry community, you have an obvious NPOV issue. I have to insist that the two cited theses bear more credence than ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred wikipedian furries who say otherwise. I'm also dismayed that these editors find the time to remove verifiable, reliable sources that they don't like, and leave original research and unsourced claims on the article. Please consider that the first study encompasses over a hundred interviewees, while the second study encompasses vast amounts of online literature. Please also consider that these are Master's theses, one by a sociologist who researched the social and psychological aspect of furries, and the other by an MA English concerning the online communities and literature of furries, otherkin, and otakukin. These are researchers who have done research. You have personal anecdotes that are not reliable sources. Finally, consider that both of these works (and a third that was deemed non-citeable) mention the tendency of furries (such as yourself) to marginalize and deny this aspect of the fandom because they are ashamed of it or for other reasons.

In short, you have a NPOV issue, and your claims do not meet the verifiability standard of Wikipedia while mine do. I am having trouble editing this article because editors like you seem to think their version of "what actually goes on" overrides Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and NPOV. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Being involved in the fandom does not necessarily constitute a COI or NPOV issue. I don't have time to evaluate those papers right now, but I'll get back to them (and the citation list) this weekend, if things work out. Hopefully this will lead to a stronger article in the end.

Oh, random question: where'd you come up with your username? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Random answer: yes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FurAffinity Cub Porn Vote NPOV under Sexual Aspects

I strongly question the NPOV of the wording of the FurAffinity vote allowing cub porn under Sexual Aspects. The debate over whether FurAffinity should allow cub porn was hotly contested. The vote that allowed cub porn on FurAffinity marginally passed by just a few votes. The FurAffinity community was virtually divided down the middle over the issue of allowing fictional pedophilic content on its servers. However, the article omits this vital information, and through such omission, the article reads that the community was in general support of pedophilic content. Furthermore, the reasons why the slim majority of FurAffinity allowed cub porn was because they felt that to censure drawn fictional pedophilic content was a violation of free speech -- not because they necessarily agreed with the content of the material itself. Bluntly, I believe these charged edits and choice to omit further information on this highly controversial matter reflects some measure of hostility on the part of their author that decided them important to include in the first place. Ferretsage (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:UnicornPartialSuit.jpg

File:UnicornPartialSuit.jpg -- Are we certain that's really a girl in the suit, not a man or a male-to-female transgender? There is lack of proper evidence. 166.205.136.88 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is credited to a specific person who identifies as female. Under their word that that is them in the suit, yes, there is proper evidence. Silverseren^C 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)