Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Furry fandom. 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 10

←

Archive 13

Upcoming book

Deviance Today, chapter titled "Furries and Their Communities".

I feel this book will fill the lack of any serious academic studies in this article. Expected date 16/02/2012. I will try to get a hold of it as soon as possible. Furry-friend (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Textbooks now contain chapters about furries? That's.. vaguely bizarre. :) What are our rules regarding citing textbooks, anyhow? I honestly have no idea. They don't sound like the best material to cite in an encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The chapter is written by a PhD in anthropology and sociology. It sounds like the best material to me. Certainly better than entertainment news interviews and online surveys. Furry-friend (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A textbook is a good source, but it is certainly not the best source, since it counts as a tertiary source rather than secondary, since it is a conglomeration of information of secondary sources, much like Wikipedia is. The one thing we'll have to check when it comes out is what sources the author used when writing the chapter. If s/he used known unreliable ones, that would bring into question the reliability of the chapter as a whole. Silver seren^C 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike you a leeeeetle bit strange that you're already doubting the validity of a chapter by a PhD in sociology (and a department chair at a university) but you still think self-selecting anonymous unverifiable internet surveys are A-OK? Furry-friend (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting it. I hope that it uses good sources and properly represents the information. But I also know that there are a number of unreliable sources out there that such research might come across and know that this could bring unreliability into any publication. Silver seren^C 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, within academia peer-reviewed journal articles are considered the best, followed by peer-reviewed conference papers. Depending on the discipline, books vary from ok to good - they aren't normally peer-reviewed, so they aren't necessarily as good as peer-reviewed publications, but they allow for more content. Thus fields such as archaeology rate them higher than, for example, information systems, as the former appreciates the extra space, while the latter needs more peer-review. Anyway, it looks like a good source in WP terms, and certainly better than most. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Argh, doesn't anyone else find it odd that you are talking about peer review in academia but raise none of these concerns about the other, low-quality sources in the article? Furry-friend (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really, in that I've raised concerns about some of the other articles in the past. :) My apologies if my comment came out wrong - I'm looking forward to the book, and it should be great. But there is an assumption I find with my students that books are the best sources, when (in my discipline, anyway) they are well down in the list, and you are generally pretty careful about using them. Which is interesting, because in my wife's discipline they are much more important. So my coment was intended to be more general and not a suggestion that the book won't be a good source. My only concern is whether or not the chapter will be too much from a particular POV given the book's theme, but that won't deny its value even if it is an issue, so much as recommend the caution we use with any source. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazon notified me that they are "experiencing a delay with [my] order". Gonna have to wait a few more weeks looks like. Furry-friend (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

An update on my lack of updating: I got the book in February, and the article is interesting but it does not provide any new data; it's a review of existing data and an overview of the sociology of deviant communities in general and furry communities in particular. Doctor Jackie Eller seems to have published further research on the topic but I can't find it anywhere. Furry-friend (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it can at least be used to back up information already in the article? Silver seren^C 21:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Furry female vs. female fursuit

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To address this . . . the subject is Darky Delacroix, a fursuit account owned by TheWonderHorse, who has a picture identifying them as female. GreenReaper (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up. Silver seren^C 01:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry kiddos, but a myspace account don't verify noone. I can upload a picture of a sea monster and say "this is a sea monster," but not on Wikipedia I can't. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If the subject states they are a female, there's no reason for us not to believe that. Unless there is a legitimate reason to disbelieve the assertion, we follow it. Silver seren^C 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the furry fandom, as in the lol cyber myspacedom, people often masquerade as something they are not, including gender confusion. Let's avoid the confusion and use neutral language. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I support Conti's Apr 17 edit. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it's silly that I had to make this edit in the first place. You seem to be edit warring just for the sake of edit warring, and if this is what it takes to get you to shut up, so be it. --Conti|✉ 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't flash your claws at me, girlfrien' I ain't the one you want. Furry sites on Wikipedia are not furryzines. Tits on a costumed figure, in a social group known for its gender confusion and sexual adventurers, doesn't let you label said tittied figure and use a tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods as proof that "our stupid little club is gaining more female members."

Go start a unicorn blog if you think policy-compliant edits are personal attacks.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, we don't have a notarized statement from whoever is wearing the suit that she (or he, or it) is actually a furry at all. Perhaps she or he or it is actually indifferent toward the fandom, or hates it, and is wearing the suit to be ironic. Maybe we should remove the word "furry" from the caption. For that matter, how do we know it is a person at all? Perhaps it is simply a mannequin.

(P.S. Is "stupid little club" a policy-compliant edit? Because it really does seem more like a personal attack to me.) —Dajagr (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Luke, "gender confusion" is offensive. Knock it off.

Second, a self-published webpage is a valid source in this case. WP:ABOUTSELF. A primary source can be used as a source of information about the person. If they self-identify as female, it is not our place to second-guess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First, gender confusion is an accurate description of the furry community. Furries are more confused about naughty bits than a blind hermaphrodite.

Second, no its not a valid source. As per your referenced WP, a self-published report is good if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." I have a reasonable doubt that a webpage of someone dressing up like Hello Kitty is quite possibly tricking people. Internet + Furry = probably a weirdo with a penis. I doubt that any furry webite, anywhere, ever, was not created by a weirdo with a penis. Find me a furry who isn't a weirdo with a penis, and I'll find you a weirdo who cut off his penis. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm convinced that you're simply trolling. You're claiming the entire fandom is "gender confused," which is not only inaccurate but offensive. And there is not a reasonable doubt about that site. Finally, whether you use "loser" or "weirdo," you're just being insulting. There's no point wasting my time any further on this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then go elsewhere. You obviously can't handle a grown-up discussion of men in bright, imaginative suits that contain secret com-paw-ments. I didn't declare "all furry webite, anywhere, ever, was not created by a weirdo with a penis." That doesn't make any sense, I just said that, if a person made a furry website and is trying to say they are a woman, that isn't evidence of there being a bunch of furry females in the furry community. I'm sure there are some. There are black people in the KKK. But I "...doubt that any furry webite, anywhere, ever, was not created by a weirdo with a penis" so if your gonna bring a female furry personal website in as RS, it better be better than a half-assed myspace account. I doubt. I don't know there aren't any, I have a reasonable doubt about any furry uploading a hot pic of themselves unto the ROFL internet.

Do you have a problem with Conti's version? If so, let's please discuss. I'm sorry that words like "loser" "weirdo" and "gender confused" annoy you, but if they do then stay off the Wikipedia articles about furries. Their notability is defined by the L, W, and GC words. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting reliable source.

Someone goes to your everyday common furpile in the woods and gets eaten by a real bear http://www.spike.com/video-clips/j9y2cy/1000-ways-to-die-doh-boy It sure is unusual to have a bear by a furry meeting. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not really relevant to anything. Silver seren^C 00:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New article from The Verge

There's a fairly decent article here from The Verge that is about Anthrocon. But it also discusses a lot of other stuff, like the origins of the fandom, how the internet has affected the development of the fandom, and about the general age of the fandom and how it differs from place to place. Silver seren^C 06:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Who are the furries" reference duplicated

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The BBC News "Who are the furries" article has duplicate items in the references, numbers 7 and 51; there doesn't seem to be a real reason for this. Lackofcheese (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Combined the refs. RudolfRed (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No lock?

Why is someone exploiting this article by removing the lock? We dont have that on any other page, this is unacceptable, why is someone doing that?184.98.114.65 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the sexual section in the lead?

The main page has a long-stable section on the sexual aspects of the furry fandom, including three cites (and a fourth, which is dead link). Because sexuality is a notable aspect of the topic (enough to merit its own section), I believe a short mention is appropriate in the lead. I added such a sentence, but user:Conti has twice deleted it. (Once claiming that there were no cites, despite that WP:LEADCITE indicates that cites already in the article do not need to be repeated, and then again, claiming that it should be discussed on this talkpage first, despite that there already exist such discussion for the same sentence nearly verbatim as the very first discussion here.)

I recognize that many people are ashamed of sex and even more ashamed of atypical sexual interests, but that is neither here nor there for WP. There are already numerous references to the sexual angle of the furry fandom, and being bashful about sex is not a good reason for bowdlerizing leads.

Other input would be welcome.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your latest edits just made things worse:

You're openly synthesizing stuff by linking Human animal roleplay to this article, using a citation that doesn't even have anything whatsoever to do with the furry fandom and has no place in this article.
Again, the link between Human animal roleplay and this is non-existent, and there's no source linking the two.
The other source you use is a wordpress blog from a professor of "Gambling Studies". Not reliable in any way.
The vanity fair source (which is also a 404 for me, oddly enough) has long been discredited as, well, at times misleading, at times outright false tabloid bullshit. There is a reason this article does not use it as a source.
As to the original edit, that, too, was summarizing sources in a questionable manner. One survey does not allow us to make factual statements about the entire fandom, especially not in the lead, in the way you did it. Not to mention that the source that presented those numbers is by now a dead link, so before anything, we need to find a copy of the original somewhere.

I'll remove the Human animal roleplay link, as it's blatantly violating WP:NOR. As for the rest, I agree with you, some outside opinions would be great. --Conti|✉ 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I prefer sources that are easy for anyone to retrieve, the sexual dimension is contained in the professional literature. I put one the mainpage, but there exist others— James Cantor (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source at the moment, but the abstract says "This review summarizes the studies leading to the concept of ETLEs and describes how ETLEs are believed to manifest in men whose preferred erotic targets are women, children, men, amputees, plush animals, and real animals." So there's no mention of the furry fandom anywhere. Could you possibly cite the part about the fandom? --Conti|✉ 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Freund and Blanchard (1993) described a male patient who was attracted to anthropomorphic plush animals, who masturbated using them, and who developed the fantasy of becoming a plush animal himself. Freund and Blanchard (1993) believed that this man experienced an erotic target identity inversion with respect to his putative erotic target, plush animals....[D]escriptions of persons who display sexual attraction to plush animals, engage in sexual behavior while impersonating such animals, or both, are not difficult to find...An erotic interest in plush animals has been called plushophilia (Hill, 2000). In principle, this term would also describe a fetishistic interest in this erotic target, because plush animals are inanimate and ipso facto can be considered fetishes. Many plush animals, however, are representations of anthropomorphic animal characters in animated cartoons (Gurley, 2001; Hill, 2000)....Some persons with plushophilia—and some persons who apparently do not experience this paraphilia—at times wear anthropomorphic animal costumes called fursuits (Gurley, 2001). The practice of wearing fursuits to impersonate animal characters is called fursuiting; an erotic interest in doing so could appropriately be called fursuitism. Similarly, the desire to change one’s body into a facsimile of a plush animal could appropriately be called autoplushophilia....Just as cross-dressing by men does not always have an erotic motive, fursuiting by men is not always an erotic practice (WikiFur, n.d.). Nevertheless, some men openly acknowledge the erotic component of their interest in plush animals and in fursuiting; these persons sometimes humorously refer to themselves as furverts (Gurley, 2001)" (Lawrence, 2009, p. 206).

— James Cantor (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. But, honestly, I'm having a hard time how you can interpret the above text and use it as a reference for the statement "A substantial portion of the fandom is sexually interested in or in being such characters." That is more than just a stretch. First of all, the paragraph is for the most part about Plushophilia, which is at most tangentially related to the fandom. The part about fursuits does not even acknowledge its adult nature, it merely coins the hypothetical term "fursuitism". Only the last sentence mentions erotic interest that might be connected to the fandom, and even then.. how can you take a source that says "some men" and attribute a sentence to it that says "a substantial portion"? That seems like a strong misrepresentation of the source, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. "Plushophilia", "fursuitism", "furvertion", "autoplushophilia", and so on all are referring to the same phenomenon. Because of the recency of the recognition of the phenomenon, there are still multiple terms, and people and communities use different terms, as do professionals. This does not at all indicate that they are different phenomena. Members of the fandom all talk about the sexual aspects on their own community sites as do the professionals (like Lawrence) who study it. The photo's on the mainpage all depict exactly what Lawrence describes. That Lawrence did not repeat the word "sex" in every sentence is not a counter-indication: Lawrence' entire article (published in a sex research journal) is about the sexual aspects of the phenomenon from beginning to end.

Regarding "substantial" versus "some", I avoided the word "some" in deference to WP:WEASEL. I am entirely open to alternative wording, if you would like to offer some.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if all that were true, the reference still does not support the statement you put into the article. There is simply no word about how many people or how big a percentage of the fandom is sexually interested in anything. But that's besides the point, anyhow.

If you do not know the difference between Plushophilia and Fursuits and their relation to the furry fandom, then I advise you to inform yourself on these matters first. Saying that research about one is equivalent to research about the other is, frankly, absurd. You might as well throw research about Zoophilia into the mix while we're at it, since that has something to do with animals, too.

What photos are you talking about? Do you mean the ones in this article? If so, I'm even more confused.

As to the weasel words, it seems odd that you would be worried about using one weasel word and instead use another one that drastically changes the meaning of the sentence. The current revision is much better, leaving out any kind of quantifying weasel word. But still, even that is not supported by the source.

I implore you to read WP:NOR, especially WP:SYNTH. While connecting the dots is a good idea when researching a subject (obviously), this is not something we do here at Wikipedia. We do not create new content, we summarize what has already been written. --Conti|✉ 01:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that you are reverting to mere personal attacks, there is little I can add. To return to the original point (and the title of this section), I am only adding to the lead information that is already on the main page itself. For you to dislike my wording but refuse to propose any other wording is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can claim all you like that I need to educate myself on the topic, but that claim too is empty without RS's of the type you yourself have demanded of me. — James Cantor (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out the perceived personal attacks? I really don't intend to attack you personally, and would be happy to change my wording accordingly. Back to the topic, I'm not suggesting an alternative wording because I fundamentally disagree with it. The source in no way says what you claim it says, unless you equate plushophilia with "fursuitism" and define a member of the furry fandom as necessarily participating in both. All of which is plain wrong. If you want sources for that, this article provides more than enough to make the distinction between the various terms. --Conti|✉ 16:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Conti on this one - the text you quoted from the referenced article only states that such people exist. It does not as far as I can tell say how common they are, nor state or imply that these people represent a substantial portion of furry fans. I don't see anything in the quoted text to justify it being featured in the lede. Also, for what it's worth, it doesn't appear to me that anything Conti said would amount to a personal attack. mwalimu59 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has successfully kept yiff out of this article for a long time, but we all know that it is a significant part of the fandom. Perhaps a separate article for the paraphilia? Like furry fetish? It seems like now is as good a time as any for us to kick open the closet door and be OUT, LOUD, AND PROUD! Xerofox (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's covered in the article; the current discussion is whether it should be addressed in the lede section. There used to be a separate article on Yiff, but was nominated for deletion twice, with the result on the second nomination to merge and redirect to the aforementioned section. I see you just began participating yesterday, so welcome to Wikipedia! mwalimu59 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe one day that discussion can be re=opened. ^_^ Xerofox (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the corresponding sentence from the article. I have access to the source now, and it in no way mentions the fandom or even furries, not a single word. Also of note would be "A response to Lawrence's (2009) erotic target location errors" (DOI: 10.1080/00224490903230053), harshly criticizing the original article. It's worth a read. --Conti|✉ 00:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

An RS does not have to use the same term, especially with a topic that has so few RS's at all. The RS need only to address the same topic. Of course, there will always be individuals who prefer one or another term or typology.

Second, no problem to mention Moser's critique. However, mentioning Moser's critique without Lawrence' response would not yield what one would call an encyclopaedic entry.

Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic Target Location Errors are easy to mischaracterize: A reply to Moser. The Journal of Sex Research, 46, 385-386.

I have added short summaries of both to the Erotic target location error page, for those interested. My own opinion is that Moser's complaint is about political correctness, (the word error appearing in the name).

— James Cantor (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Erotic target location error looks fine to me. Could you confirm that it was Blanchard who coined the term? It seems noteworthy to me to write who and when the term was first used, if such information is available.

As for the edits to this article, I partially agree with you, too. The problem I see is that we define the terms rather differently. For me, it's not so clear cut that one term is synonymous to the other (say, "furry fandom" to "plushophilia"). There is a reason we have different articles about all these different terms, after all. If they were synonymous, we might as well redirect them all to one place. I'm still not convinced that the Lawrence source can be used here. --Conti|✉ 10:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Blanchard coined the term in 1993.

As you might guess, I see this problem a lot on WP: We technical folks come up with technical terms, define them as precisely as we can, publish them in RS's, and have debates with other scientists about the evidence that informs where the line should be. Members of the community of people who experience the construct, however, go through a more "organic" process. Many terms are invented and bandied about, with different advocates focussing on whatever aspect they feel important enough to be advertised to the world via the term or hidden. Because that evolution happens outside of RS's, there is never a concrete indication of whether there actually is a single "accurate" term (or series of terms to relevant aspects of the phenomenon).

In short, I am not very concerned about the term itself, so much as the lack of attention to the sexual aspects of the furry fandom. Whether its in Yiff, in Furry Fandom, in ETLE and/or anywhere else, it is an error to mask the sexual aspects.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not think that the sexual aspects are "masked", they are given their appropriate attention in this article, which is very little. Take Anime, for example. There is a gigantic industry around anime porn, and there surely is a large number of people consuming said porn. But there's no word about it in the article. Similarly, Film industry does not have a word about the adult film industry. Would anyone ever consider adding this information to the lede of those articles? Of course not. Anime has a link to Hentai, and that's it. Similarly, this article could have a link to Yiff, but that article was deleted twice, if I remember correctly, since there's simply not enough sources. So we have a paragraph in this article as a compromise.

I also think you are getting at this from the wrong side. You should not adjust your sources to reflect your personal view. Taking a source that basically says that there are people having sex with animals, plush animals and/or in full body plush suits out there, and using that source to write that a significant(!) portion of the fandom has an erotic interest in the subject matter is, frankly, a crass misrepresentation of the source, even taking into account your argument that those different terms basically refer to the same thing, which I also disagree with. Write what the sources say, don't write what you think should be written.

And while we're at it, is the current source used reliable? (http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf) It seems to be a private survey, as far as I can tell. One editor removed flayrah (a furry news site), presumably because it is not a reliable source, and added another, equally reliable source, which I find rather odd. Either allow both, or be strict and disallow both. --Conti|✉ 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are not without base, and I have no reason to fight strongly. Being in the field, I can see what is coming down the path before most people, but I do not at all challenge what the current state of the RS's is. Although I think they are sufficient currently, I have no reason to push.— James Cantor (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)