Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Why are furries nearly always restricted to certain animals?

99% of them seem to be foxes, wolves, or dragons. Why is that? 86.182.222.189 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Because people like those the most? And I would hazard a guess that your percentage is very far off. There's a significant number of other types too. Silverseren^C 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's because the patriarchy hates nematodes, sponges, and slime molds. 2601:9:7E02:5D25:6920:61B3:9B7E:B409 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why do people like those the most? 86.182.222.189 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a few theories on that. Wolves are probably the most populous by far, followed by foxes, and then dragons. Wolves are likely popular because they are, in general, popular animals that the general public also likes. You could also say that wolves and foxes fall into ideas of dominant and submissive roles (though not always). As for dragons, that is likely because of the mystique, the concept of dragons as amazing mythical creatures and also the free reign to design them however you want, since you aren't as restrained by the reality of an existing animal. All that's just my opinion, however. And we're pretty much in the bad zone of WP:FORUM here, so we should probably stop, since this has nothing to do with improving the article. Silverseren^C 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. Thanks for your comments. It's something I've wondered about. 86.182.222.189 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a misinterpretation that wolves are overly popular. Wolves and foxes fall into the canine category. Its canines and felines in general that are popular, because they are the types humans have the most experience with and therefore may feel closer to than other animals.

Mice and Rabbits are equally as common, for various reasons, mainly because there's a cartoon fandom underneath all this psychological BS that has its roots in Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. If anyone is at all confused about the nature of Furry Fandom, it’s because so many people who write about it refuse to acknowledge that fact. Certain animal types just naturally translate into attractive and expressive cartoon characters, and it’s quite common for Furries to have been influenced by the cartoons they grew up with.

Dragons seem to be popular because they have their own subculture which has been somewhat merged with Furry Fandom due to the use of shared web sites. They are an aspect of the general fantasy fandom that has grown up independently and been quite popular in its own right. So you are naturally going to see a lot of them around. Perri Rhoades (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

On that note - to bring it back to potentially useful material - roughly the same number of furs keep cats as keep dogs (plus other more interesting statistics). GreenReaper (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, furries like me can have any animal we want as our fursona, but most of us choose a canine animal. KidLucario (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a good number of furries that don't fall into this "common species" stereotype. using myself as an example, I am a Shire Horse and an Orca. Go figure. SiriusKarma (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Aspects Request of change

Sexual aspects could use a tad tweak. As "Yiff" can be associated with "Furry Sex" n' all but some communities prefer this not to be used, as it sounds rather...in simple speaking, Dumb. What I'm saying is, it is still used as a word in the community, but I don't belive it deserves the 'common' rank. Jarrodmaddy (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You said yourself that "some communities" do not like the term. The majority of furry communities, individual furry fans, and unaffiliated sources use the term. In addition, even in the "some" communites that do not use it, if the term is used by another person, they will still understand what is being refered to. I think that constitutes the definition of "common". Kila Onasi^(talk) 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The term may be common, yet also disparaged or controversial within the community. If a reference can be found to back this detail up, it should probably be added. GreenReaper (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fursuitism/ETLE shenanigans?

I've noticed that fursuitism now redirects to the ETLE article. Is this a credible redirect? The question needs to be asked as it makes the implication of mental deviance. Considering the nature of it, I'm of the opinion that shenanigans were involved. - 77.107.172.208 (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, the earliest and possibly only use of the term "fursuitism" in an article that could be considered a reliable source was in one that discussed sexual fetishes and mentioned fursuit sex. The term has not to my knowledge seen widespread usage. Personally I would welcome the notion of having a separate term for sexual use of fursuits to set it apart from fursuiting in general. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have the redirect deleted per WP:NEO. As far as I know, the term has been hypothetically coined in one paper and never been used since. --Conti|✉ 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate a paper which cites WikiFur, I must agree . . . the topic is not covered within the article, and that is because the only use of the term is the above hypothetical. I have opened a discussion. The description on the ELTE article was also incorrect and inappropriately implied that the term had currency, when the paper clearly proposed it; I have edited it to clarify that it is a proposed term. GreenReaper (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why was the list of relevant resources deleted from the talk page?

Like many of my other edits to this article, I noticed that my list of sources for the development of this article was deleted. Should templates like this be retained for articles like this one, or should the use of this template be restricted to stub articles? Jarble (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If you refer to this edit, it's pretty much what I said in my revert: The template should be used when there are only very few sources available, or when the sources presented in the template are not obvious. Neither is the case here: There are countless sources already present in the article, which is very well developed, and the template did not add any additional sources other than a simple web search. --Conti|✉ 19:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the template that I had added would have been useful for this further expansion of this article, if it hadn't been deleted. Does Wikipedia have any official policy or guideline that prevents the findsources-notice template from being used on well-developed articles? Jarble (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy for every minor template out there, it's simple common sense. Everybody knows how to use Google, so there's no need to tell people to use it. --Conti|✉ 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's true that most users know how to use Google, but many people are unfamiliar with some of Google's more advanced search features (such as regular expression searching), and the findsources-notice template can use those advanced search features to improve the relevance of the search results. If this page contained links to search results that contained some relevant search terms (e.g., a Google Books regular expression search with the query furry ( fursona|"species dysphoria"|roleplaying|fursuit)), it would allow this article's editors to immediately access a variety of relevant search results that they would otherwise need to type in manually. Additionally, some of the most relevant search terms for this article (such as fursona, anthro, and species dysphoria) would not be obvious to many readers, so it would be helpful for that reason as well. Jarble (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Google search you just linked, and go through the results one by one. Almost all of the results on the first page are either totally unrelated or are spam books taking Wikipedia articles and other free resources. There's one book I see that might be used as a source, but that only offers a simple definition of the fandom. So, again, there's no point in using it here. So no, your Google search is not really helpful, and people might as well do their own searches using whatever search terms they want. Which is just what they should do. --Conti|✉ 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

At least 4 of the search results on the first page are relevant to this article, and are neither spam nor Wikipedia mirrors: here, here, here, and here. The search results page that I linked to above does contain some relevant results, so it could be very useful indeed. Jarble (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The last book is actually a copy of this very Wikipedia article... --Conti|✉ 17:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

However, the first 3 books that I posted above were not copied from elsewhere, and appear to be relevant and useful. Jarble (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Potentially, yes. So you want to create a permanent link to a Google search that links to 10 random books, 3 of which are potentially useful? --Conti|✉ 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it might be better to manually select a few relevant articles on the subject, and then post the collection of articles here. A list of relevant articles would almost certainly be more useful than a list of potentially relevant (or irrelevant) search results.

Exactly. --Conti|✉ 18:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Animal roleplaying article relevant to the roleplaying section of this article?

I noticed that the see also hatnote in the Role-playing section of this article was recently removed, even though the animal roleplaying article is relevant to this section (since it discusses some forms of roleplaying that are associated with the furry fandom). Is there any particular reason why this hatnote was removed (despite its relevance to the article's subject)? Jarble (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no relevance. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of hatnotes. They exist to link to clearly relevant, related topics. Being mentioned in passing in another section does not make it a clearly relevant, related topic. Animal roleplay also links to and mentions Edgeplay. Does that mean that Edgeplay needs a hatnote linking to Animal roleplay? Of course not. Please, for the love of god, stop trying to link everything to everything else. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly believed that the animal roleplaying article was relevant to the Furry fandom#Role-playing section, since it appeared to discuss the same subject. How is roleplaying in the context of furry fandom distinct from animal roleplaying as described in the animal roleplaying article? Jarble (talk)

May be replace typical furry character?

...with this?

File:Anthro vixen (colored).png

An anthropomorphic vixen, a typical furry character (colored)

The file in question was uploaded without any copyright information, which means that it is liable to removal. That makes it a bad candidate for usage in the article. —Dajagr (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disney

There should be some reference to Disney films, hanna barbera cartoons, etc., I think, because of their prolific use of anthropomorphic animals. These films were most people's introduction to furry fandom before the term existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1D:160:4261:86FF:FE4B:B545 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Images

There's some awesome art out there, and some very good looking fursuits as well ( even though most fursuits are butt-ugly ). Why not update/upgrade the current images all of I which quite frankly I wouldn't look twice at. I know, I know, I can do it myself. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes. --2001:980:A4CB:1:10B3:DA78:F169:B533 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that you can't just grab any image you like willy-nilly and post it; it has to be a picture that has been released into the public domain. Most artists prefer not to do so with their work, so there's a necessarily smaller pool of images to work with. —Dajagr (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Trainwreck of Syntax

From the last paragraph in the article: "According to Furry survey, about half of furries perceive public reaction to the fandom as negative; less than a fifth stated that the public responded to them more negatively than they did most furries."

What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"What" indeed ! If the 2nd clause means anything it implies that fewer that 1/5 of furries thought that they were personally the objects of particular dislike by the public - a kind of low-incidence paranoia. If this is what is intended it should be expressed more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.59.93 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What does the fox say

Wouldn't it be worth putting a link to The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?) in here given how important the song is in furry fandom culture? 71.170.157.138 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't find it important. I can see how it may be related to furry insomuch as society accepting the fun of people dressing up in animal costumes, (at least for music videos) but I don't find it to be directly related to the furry subculture as we've seen this in music videos in the past. The people who made this had no idea about furry. Just my 2 cents. BlindWolf8 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The fox says "enough of this stupid song already." (and agrees with the above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above posters. While the song might be faddish at the moment, I don't see it holding a sustained interest and becoming central to the culture of furry fandom. There was a similar kind of interest in The Animal Song, which ran its course after a couple of years. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinions aside, perhaps the best way to approach this is simply to ask, "Does anyone have a reliable source that actually says that the song is important in furry fandom culture?" —Dajagr (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... opinions seem to vary about the actual song. There's some furry-related coverage such as here, but it's more mixed. It's interesting how this is part of a trend that you see from Taylor Swift's playing around in animal footie pajamas in her "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" video as well as that infamous Moby video. I suppose we should have more of a 'wait and see' view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.157.138 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, as most furries don't consider the song as significant (Source: my own experience), so no, we shall not. Also, that just creates another weird link for haters to abuse. KidLucario (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The "here" above is only a syndicated snippet - here's the full article. As for the topic, I'd say that since we were not relevant to them (they claimed to have no knowledge of furry fandom), it would not be particularly relevant to us. This isn't a particularly strong argument, but furry fandom has been around for decades; this is just one overly-hyped instance of anthropomorphic animals. GreenReaper (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The "suggestive furry themed picture" is definitely not neccisary

It's just not needed, why in any situation would absolutely anyone have any use of seeing this? I also think the fursuit images are overpowering, especially considering that digital and traditional art is more common in the fandom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.49.120 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014

I believe that the use of images are a little unbalanced. First there are many images of fursuits but none of digital/traditional artwork, which had been confirmed that only about 30% of the furry population even has a fur suit, though many have art of their characters. So I think more artwork examples should be added. Falvie, is likely the most popular furry artist and I think there should be a image of hers for sure: http://falvie.deviantart.com/gallery/

Not only that, I've never seen those fursuits before in all my years. They look terrible, at least get pictures of decent fursuits, they look like football mascots. Don't hug cacti is probably the most well known fursuit brand, and most fursuits look like this exact quality: http://donthugcacti.com/gallery/index.php

Also I think the suggestive furry picture is unnecessary. I'm not going to go as far as saying that the sexual aspect should entirely be removed (Though I believe it should, especially considering the anime page doesn't even have one on hentai, or pokemon on pokeporn.) Because I don't want to seem like your average disgruntled furry. Though the image isn't appropriate, especially since there's almost no information on this page anyways. It's not only "suggestive" it's pornographic, hard nipples and all. Sorry, but it really seems unprofessionally written with this.

"14–25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37–52% bisexuality, 28–51% heterosexuality" Are you kidding me? First of all why does this matter? Also, no other page includes this kind of information. This is another thing I ask why would anyone want to know this?

And there is an error, it mentions that furry was mentioned in 30 rock and it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentkeys (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you! Fluentkeys (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that (almost) any images we can display have to have a free license. So if you know any photographs or artists who would like to freely license their works, I'd be happy to include them into the article (assuming they are of good enough quality). --Conti|✉ 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Piti Yindee uses the Creative Commons Zero waiver for Wuffle Comics (http://www.wufflecomics.com/). Frederick147 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-mammal furries?

Is there a term for people who like non-mammaliam anthropomorphic? Also, I wonder where the line's drawn between fictional human with animal features and anthropomorphic animal. For example, is Princess Ruto (from LOZ: Ocarina of Time) a woman with blue skin and a few fish characteristics or a fish with human characteristics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.63.43 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who says a fish can't be a woman? You're associating the word too much with humanity. As for your first question, there is a term for lizard and scaly fish characters, scalies, which might also be applied to their fans; they are considered a subset of furries, as they are still animals. This is all "original research" of course. GreenReaper (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the "scalies" GreenReaper referenced above, anthropomorphic bird characters are sometimes called "avians", which is simply a word for bird. as for your second question, there is a sliding scale of anthropomorphism; I'm not familiar with Princess Ruto but I'm sure you can decide for yourself where on the scale she lies. Equivamp - talk 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've also heard 'featheries' used for avian furs, although the term is not very common. At any rate, it's long been a tenet of furry fandom that it is not limited to creatures that are literally fur-covered. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Suggestive furry-themed picture" Edit request: Implications of slander and alienation of the subject

(Edited this talk section to make an edit request.) --65.129.140.174 (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Request for removal of the "Suggestive furry-themed picture". According the Edit requests page, only uncontroversial edits can be made and I recognize this. So far I have seen no controversy over keeping the image, only suggestions of removal. If anyone reading this believes the image is necessary and supports the article, please don't hesitate to say so.

Is this image necessary? Never mind any opinions of poor taste, this doesn't seem to be informational, factual, relevant, appropriate or "common" (as stated in a different talk section). The only point to this image as well as the awkward semi-formal caption going along with it seems to be an intent to degrade and alienate the subject at hand. These kinds of slanderous implications were frequented by the media in the early 2000's specifically toward the furry fandom with the intent to use the fandom as a means of getting quick views and to stir up controversy. Can we get past this phase yet? --65.129.140.174 (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about it. As you suggest, there has been and continues to be a tendency on the part of certain journalists to portray furry fandom as a sexual fetish when in fact that only represents a small fraction of fans. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of adult work being produced by and circulated among furry fans, even though for most it's not their primary reason for being interested in the fandom. This is also true of many other "geek fandoms", such as Star Trek, Star Wars, comics, MLP, and especially anime; evidently it's human nature that whatever people are interested in, some fans are going to produce adult works. Furry fandom is no exception; what is inaccurate is to place a lot of focus on it in furry fandom while dismissing it in the others. Ideally the article should reflect this balance, and the one suggestive image doesn't strike me as being too out of balance, but I wouldn't object to it being removed either. mwalimu59 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have used Wikipedia as an informational source for at least eight years now and I have never added a single talk page, edited an article, or made an edit request. In those eight years this is very well the worst thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Worse than edits on the Justin Bieber page. I was going to explain just exactly how bad this is and why that is and how it doesn't belong here but I didn't do a good job, so here's a story instead which reflects this situation. A very well known social psychologist (Wikipedia) has spent years analyzing human behavior. This social psychologist writes up as many reports as he can on observed human behavior, and his information is very useful to people around the world. He tries not to pertain to any bias whatsoever, and keeps a formal air about himself at all times that he may be the most informational to all audiences as possible. One day, he decides to do a report on (insert color) people. He covers every aspect of these people's lives, but then forgets where he's going after he visits a strip club. He decides that, compared to what he saw at the strip club, all other aspects about these people are boring. Half of his written report on these people ends up being about strip clubs, with one picture... This image you see in the article. I shouldn't even have to explain what exactly makes this picture... Unfitting. Other than that, the other half of his report seems very well written and accurate, and is or seems to be true to people who read up on the report. Many of these readers didn't know what the (insert color) people are, and when they saw that half of this very accurate article is about strip clubs... Well, you get the picture. --65.129.140.174 (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I've removed the picture WP:BOLDly. From some of the talk page messages above in the past year there seems to be a weak consensus that the picture is unnecessary to support the article. Mz7 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Aspects Section Edit Request

The source cited in the Sexual Aspects section pertaining to the second 2008 survey of furry practices is currently accessible, but the survey that it bases its analysis on is no longer accessible. As such, the sections that refer to that study may be subject to WP:Verifiable guidelines. Request that someone please check and, if necessary, remove unsourced sections. 72.209.39.114 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

===Conventions===

Main article: Furry convention

Sufficient interest and membership has enabled the creation of many furry conventions in North America and Europe. A furry convention is for the fans get together to buy and sell artwork, participate in workshops, wear costumes, and socialize. The world's largest furry convention, Anthrocon with more than 4,000 participants, held annually in Pittsburgh in June, was estimated to have generated approximately $3 million to Pittsburgh's economy in 2008. Another convention, Further Confusion, held in San Jose each January, closely follows Anthrocon in scale and attendance. US$470,000 was raised in conventions for charity from 2000–9. The first known furry convention, ConFurence, is no longer held; Califur has replaced it, as both conventions were based in Southern California. A University of California, Davis survey suggested that about 40% of furries had attended at least one furry convention., In recent years more furry conventions have been starting up, for example Furlaxation, held in Columbus, Ohio is now in it's third year.

References

LightpawsHird (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Pretty sure he wants to add the bit at the end about his convention. It's true that many new furry conventions have started up, but we should reference a reliable source. GreenReaper (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No Mention to Species dysphoria?

Why so? I expected to find its link at least on 'See Also'. I came to the article precisely looking for something similar, and found the article on Species Dysphoria searching outside wikipedia- an article that mentions furry fandom and similars multiple times. Double checking after reading the other article i found its link on 'related concepts'. Im new to wikipedia and its policies, but considering how it matters to the subject and its relevance i sincerely believe it should be more visible (regarding usability, the related articles box at the end is buried). Ive never been active on wikipedia before but im daily reader, and very rarely i look upon said related articles box- only when i know what precisely what im looking for, deepening a search. The article currently raises visibility to sub-sub-'genres' which the very definition matters little beyond the furry community itself, and have no mentions to an article regarding a phenomenon wich could be one of the explanations (amongst others) to the very existence of the fandom. If my knowledge of wikipedia isn't mistaken the article itself ommits the other article entirely- it only appears linked thanks to the automatic way the wiki code relates articles of a similar subject.

This in no way have any depreciative intention. Ive simply readed an entire article looking for something that, saving mentions to some surveys and external sources had no relevant, easily found links to a article that is highly relevant to the subject. The omission seens odd considering similar related subjects are easily found and upfront on other articles\subjects.Vibal (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The navigation box at the end of the article and its content are maintained manually, just like the article is. So the link to Species dysphoria was not created automatically, either. Generally, the "see also" section should only contain links to important topics that are related to the article, and have not been mentioned anywhere else in the article. Thus the see also section is kept short, while a more expansive list of related articles can be found in the furry fandom navigation box. If you want the article itself to mention species dysphoria, you need to find a reliable source mentioning it in the context of the furry fandom. Personally, I'd say that it's a related topic, surely (and thus warranting a link in the navigation box), but it's much stronger related to Otherkin and similar subcultures rather than the fandom. --Conti|✉ 21:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

New RS, for those interested.

FYI:

Soh, D. W., & Cantor, J. M. (2015). A peek inside a furry convention. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0423-y

I am happy to supply reprints to anyone interested.— James Cantor (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a peer-reviewed academic paper, but a "letter to the editor." Although published in a scientific journal, it is no different than any convention-goer's personal impressions. Summary:

"Furnal Equinox" is the largest furry convention in Canada, with 910 attendees and 265 fursuiters in 2014. Arts, crafts, clothes, costumes, and accessories are sold, erotic or otherwise. Most furries collect erotic and non-erotic furry art. The convention is LGBT-friendly. At the 2014 convention, some of the furries reported sexual interest in furries, others did not. Some of the furries were wary of the general public's perception of the furry fandom.

Furry-friend (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That is correct; the cite is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. Being a letter does not rule it out as an RS, however:

• WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
• WP:USERG: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."

— James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising

I think you might've just forgotten one of the most important parts of being a furry! Us furries raise over 1,000 dollars every year(we usually raise a couple thousand)! 75.112.193.68 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

I want to know about the templates of the bibliography so I could add reliable references to an article about ' Yiff'in Spanish. Sonderflux (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are not the place to ask questions about Wikipedia. Your question is better suited at the Teahouse. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite Full Protection please?

• Furry Fandom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Create indefinite full protection: Nakon, request staff that template/article is considered high-risk, make it full protection whatsoever, change from indefinite semi-protection to full-protection. 112.209.86.65 (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Declined. Please actually read our protection policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TapestriesMUCK

Why has the TapestriesMUCK article been deleted, and why does it redirect here? TapestriesMUCK has enough grounds to be its own article and while "furry-centric" it could be redirected to a number of better articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.245.95 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ask the admin who deleted it. BMK (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This person's thesis may be of interest

Found this on the furry subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/furry/comments/45f356/my_furry_phd/

It might make a good source to cite for some new information once it's complete. Imma keep an eye on this. SarrCat ∑;3 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The connection to the mythological concept of human-animal hybrids? This article, and that one.

To what extent should this article cover the general concept of human-animal hybrids, going back to Greek-Roman-Egyptian-etc mythology and related topics? Or should it even mention it at all? I've seen a few references here and there about how some 'furries' refer to Pan, Anubis, Pazuzu, etc as inspiration. But, even though it seems like there's a logical progression here (Human culture has evolved: Mythological bunny-human deities -> Folklore tales of bunny-human beings -> Brer Rabbit and other such beings in recorded media -> Bunny kemono animated beings and bunny furry online characters, etc) I still find it confusing given that the whole modern 'furry fandom' pretty much popped up into being in the 1980s without much in the way of earlier connections. What do you guys think?

The flip side is whether or not there should be a section on the 'furry fandom' in the human animal hybrid page, since right now there's nothing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The extent to which such info should be in the article is the extent to which there are reliable sources which support that information, and the extent to which it's generally accepted by the academic community, per WP:WEIGHT, so it's impossible to answer hypothetically. BMK (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You might have been a little more straightforward and mentioned that you just wrote the human-animal hybrid article. BMK (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You should cover most of the topic Angel Dragons (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add FurrTrax as another popular Furry Site in the examples

FurrTrax has nearly 16,000 members in 2.5 years of service, providing a full featured social networking and collaboration site. https://furrtrax.com

I would only add such a link if you had a good citation to provide... SarrCat ∑;3 09:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

There is some wrong info, may i fix it. 47.20.18.198 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the particular info that you would like to correct? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: POV edits

• Social psychology → sociology - not a POV edit, see the meaning of "social psychology" and the above "quality of sources" talk section.
• removed "unreliable source" notice - not a POV edit, see above for the reliability of this source.
• According to many → many - not a POV edit, the source cites ONE person who claims that "many furries..." but that person is a random interviewee. The wording reflects this.
• moved a sentence from the middle of a paragraph to the start of a paragraph - not a POV edit.
• moved a section from a top-level header to "studies" subheader - the closest thing here to a POV edit, and yet the only "POV" is that 10 out of the 12 sources are studies, analyses of studies, or overviews of studies, which is a fact. Two sources that aren't studies don't "spoil the lot", especially when these references can be removed without impacting the section at all.

User:Beyond My Ken is pushing some absurd notion that these are POV edits, when three don't change a single word, one removes an "unreliable source" notice since the source is an expert in the field of the cited claim, one corrects BMK's false (and non-consensus) edit that "sociological studies" needs to be "social psychology studies", and another that corrects a claim that's not in its provided citation. Furry-friend (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The POV edits are that you wish to combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones, to the benefit of the furry community's standing. This is POV editing. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the structure of the article as it is, and the only reason I can figure outfor it is that you wish to make this merge because it looks good for the furries. Well, I have no positive or negative feelings about them, but I I know a thing or two about article layout, and about editors who push a POV. BMK (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Three of the edits you reverted have nothing to do with scientific or non-scientific reports. Let's start with putting them back because they have nothing do to with your complaint of POV-pushing. Furry-friend (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, it's funny you're accusing me of pro-furry-POV-pushing because when I first started cleaning up this article and providing scientific citations, I was accused of anti-furry-POV-pushing. But again, this has nothing to do with three of the five edits you reverted, and they should be restored. Furry-friend (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that another editor agrees with me, and disagrees with you. That means that, so far at least, the consensus is that you changes should not remain. BMK (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First, that's not how consensus works, it's not a vote or majority rule. Second, which of these three edits is a POV edit?

• 1 - removing "unreliable source" notice from a reliable source
• 2 - changing "according to many" to "many" because it's according to one
• 3 - moving a sentence from the middle of a paragraph to the beginning of a paragraph

Furry-friend (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've waited months for a discussion. Please reply. Furry-friend (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion above. Sinply because you don't like the result doesn't invalidate it. BMK (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't ping me again. BMK (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

BMK this has not been discussed above which is why I'm pinging you. You reverted these edits because they are "POV edits". How and why? There is no "result", there is just you saying "this is POV". How are these three edits POV edits? This is the discussion part of WP:BRD. Furry-friend (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"you wish to combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones, to the benefit of the furry community's standing" - not a single one of these edits combines non-scientific reports with scientific ones. Unless you can provide a valid reason, it seems like you reverted these edits on a whim. Furry-friend (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, in bold capital letters. DO NOT PING ME AGAIN. Let me add, do not come to my talk page and post unless Wiliupedia policy requires you to do so. (And, yes, I am allowed to do that.)

Now, you've been here for 5 years, you have 222 edits overall, 113 of which are to articles. Of those 113, 54 (48%) are to "Furry fandom". That doesn't quite make you a SPA. but it brings you awfully close to SPA territory. Now, if you think your 222 edits over 5 years have given you have a better understanding of concepts like "consensus" and "edit-warring" than I've gotten, with over 190,000,000 edits over almost 11 years, then you must be exceedingly intelligent and perceptive, and your attraction to My Little Pony (22 edits) must be sn of aberration of some kind.

The truth is, you're not very clear on any of these concepts, and your concentration on Furry fandom points to you as being a COI/POV editor, something that will be taken care of in the future if you don't bone up a bit on policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING. In the meantime, this subject has been discussed and dismissed, and if you continue to attempt to re-insert it against a clear talk page consensus, the only editor who's going to be in dutch over it is you. Now, please find something else to do - maybe there's some hot news in the My Little Pony world that needs dealing with. BMK (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

BMK, this has not been discussed. You are deliberately avoiding discussing it. Can you answer which of these three edits are POV edits without resorting to personally attacking me? I have literally waited months for your replies and now that I finally have you here, you're avoiding discussion on your revert. You reverted these three edits (and two others) because you say they're "POV edits". Two of them I'm leaving aside for now. The other three, how and why are they POV edits? If I don't ping you you won't reply, and simply enforce your version of the article by a pocket veto. Furry-friend (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If you ping me one more time I will approach an admin, or post on a noticeboard, about your behavior. There will be bo additional discussion from me about a topic which has already been discussed and a consensus formed. BMK (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You are deliberately avoiding discussion. Taking this to the admin noticeboard (not pinging you or notifying you on your talk page). Furry-friend (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the discussion has been completed, is over, done, finished, wrapped up, tied in a bundle, ready for sale, no longer active, kaput, has bought the big one and is ready to meet its maker. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires that discussions continue ad infinitum, and since there's a consensus above, on this page, there's no more need for discussion. Le débat est terminé, das Reden ist beendet, Обсуждение несуществующей. Capesh? BMK (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus above. These three edits have never been discussed. 15:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not ad-infinitum. You gave an edit summary of "POV edits" and I'm asking you to explain how these three edits are POV edits. It would have taken far less time if you'd have just explained that instead of repeatedly avoided that by personally attacking me and assigning ulterior motives to these edits. How are these edits POV edits? Furry-friend (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with FF regarding the unanswered questions. I do see other editors here are nearly bullying him, avoiding his question and instead using personal attacks (discussing him instead of the edits) and suggesting admin intervention (which, if needed, should be to remind some of you about AGF, NPA, etc.). There is no policy that justifies discussing his person - he is NOT a SPA (which, btw, in itself is not an offense here), and as long as he is not shown to edit for $$$, his POV is no different from that of many other editors editing various topics on which they are biased (don't get me started on the idiocy of singling out paid editors and ignoring, let's say, religious ones who are allowed to edit religion articles, and so on...). Anyway, if we are to look for problematic edits, here is one - a revert of FF by an editor who has never edited this page or commented here before. If we want to throw CAPITALS around, I would consider thinking about WP:MEATPUPPETtry, perhaps.

Anyway, reviewing [1]. First, I support FF version of "Many furry fans had their first", I see no need to attribute this to "According to many furry fans", through it would be better to say some rather then many. That said, I do not think this interview is helpful at all, it is not a scientific study, but a short interview with no analysis, published in "Ann Arbor Paper" (?) which does not seem to be a correct name of whatever low quality source it is. Rather then fighting about the wording here, I'd strongly suggest removing this source; generalizing from a few interviews (WP:PRIMARY) is simply not a way to write an article. I would also suggest moving " Social science studies" higher then the "Sexual aspects", which is frankly a controversy-magnet, and as a perennial problematic section should be lower rather then higher. Regarding the studies section title, as I explained in my edit summary, social science should be reasonable compromise, let's move on. Frankly, it seems this is a storm in the teacup, what is it that is being fought over here? Sadly, my conclusion is that the fight here is not about the article, but about some editors dislike for another, whose only fault seems to be to have declared (through his username) that he may have a POV here. Great way to discourage people from announcing their POV/COI, guys. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Quality of sources

User:Piotrus: the source you tagged as unreliable is written by a Dr Mark Griffiths, professor of psychology, who has been recognized for his excellence in his field by several national and academic institutions. The citation is used to show that "the older lower results, which are even lower than estimated in the general population, were due to the methodology of questioning respondents face-to-face which led to social desirability bias." Since one other source makes that claim, and since Dr Griffiths is a fairly well-respected professor of psychology, I think his determination (that the methodology of the first study led to social desirability bias) is reliable in this context, despite coming from a blog. The policy Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions says: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." This is obviously the case here.

User:Beyond My Ken: The studies section does not primarily deal with social psychology. Some of the studies lightly touch the subject of social psychology. For example one study notes, "the more interesting question, from a social psychological perspective, is whether there is an anticipated change in this gender proportion over time." This is one aspect of the study that has to do with social psychology (other people's imagined or implied influence on an individual's psychology). The majority of the studies only address sociological issues (for example demographics and other statistics).

Additionally, the "sexual aspects" section cites better scientific sources than the "sociological studies" section (which mostly cites surveys published on the internet). Saying it doesn't belong in the "studies" section because two (out of twelve) references are The Times and Pittsburgh City Paper is misleading, especially when these sources can easily be removed without affecting the section's verifiability at all. Furry-friend (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree we can untag the blog by Mark_D._Griffiths, as a blog written by academic can be considered reliable (particularly on uncontroversial issues), barring any criticism of his blog/person, which hasn't been shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

International Journal of Psychological Studies

The article currently cites this journal which is published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education which doesn't exactly have the best of reputations. Can we find an alternative source foe the claim "The most popular fursona species include wolves, foxes, dogs, large felines, and dragons".©Geni (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerbasi is actually one of the more prominent researches in the furry sociology field. I personally believe her research is heavily skewed in favor of the furry fandom, putting the core behaviors of the furry fandom in a more socially desirable light and minimizing exposure if its taboo aspects, but she is probably the person with the most experience and data in this very esoteric field. Considering the size of the furry community, it's unlikely that many more researchers will choose to study it, and we have to "settle" for what's currently available. Even far more prominent subcultures, like sports fans, have relatively little research published about them. Furry-friend (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

Why are gay and bi young males massively over-represented among furries? Jim Michael (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is not for general discussion of the subject matter, but for discssions about how the article can be improved. If your statement is true, present some evidence of it, and then some sources that explain the reasons behind it. Then, write it up and add it to the article -- if Furry-friend will let you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to disrupt editing on this talk page or article through incivility, for which you have been warned time and again. Furry-friend (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly stated and sourced in the article that what I've said is true. I'm not generally discussing the article. I'm saying that the reasons for these demographics should be added to the article. I don't know of any reliable sources that explain it, so I'm suggesting that someone else add the needed info and a source to back it. It can't be coincidence that the vast majority are young, the large majority are male and the majority are gay or bi. There must be reasons, but I can't figure out why most would lose interest in it by age 30, why males outnumber females by 5 to 1 or 6 to 1, or why gays and bisexuals are over-represented by a factor of about ten. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In cases like this, where the demographics themselves are often relatively easy to measure and document in reliable sources, the reasons for those numbers can be a lot harder to assess and are likely to be much more speculative, which would mean there might not be reliable sources for them. Quite possibly the main reason there are fewer people over 30 might not be because people tend to leave the fandom above that age (which may not even be true), but because much of the growth in the fandom has been among those under 25. Also, anecdotally speaking, furry fandom was even more male-dominated in its early days, with 90-95% of attendees being male at conventions in the early 1990s, whereas today that figure is almost certainly below 75%. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the large majority enter into this subculture before 25, but that doesn't explain why few are still involved in it by 30, as it's not a very new phenomenon - it's been popular since the 90s. It also doesn't explain the lack of new furry fans over 30. What are the reasons for so many ceasing their interest in it after relatively few years? What's the reason for it predominantly attracting gay/bi males? I don't see what the connection would be. When I first heard of this, the true demographics of it never occurred to me. I thought that it would attract a wide demographic. It was only when I saw a documentary about it that I noticed, when they took the heads of their costumes off, that most of them were young men. Only later still did it become apparent that gays and bisexuals were massively over-represented. These demographics aren't a coincidence - there must be reasons that it attracts mostly young people, far more males than females - and gay and bi people to a factor of about 10. The article isn't complete without this info and I would have thought that the community would know why. Jim Michael (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate sources for the public perception and media coverage section

Sources on the "media coverage" section should be third-party sources that talk about media coverage or public perception. For example Meinzer is a source about media coverage and public perception ("[...] despite their wild image from Vanity Fair, MTV and CSI [...]"), while Ferreras is used as a primary source about its own media coverage. There should be secondary sources that evaluate and interpret the primary coverage, instead of doing that directly on the Wikipedia article. Furry-friend (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5p9IkMRFf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccawards.com%2F2001.htm to http://www.ccawards.com/2001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight - politics

As the single source for the politics section says, the majority of furries are liberal; this is also backed by the FurScience research which finds furries more liberal than the general population. Dedicating an entire section for alt-right furries when they are the minority is undue weight. Furry-friend (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rick Griffin's work- Edit request

So there's this author named Rick Griffin whose webcomic, "Housepets!", has won the Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip from 2007 to 2015. Could this be added in the webcomic section?

Also, if you're looking for ARTWORK to add, he's a good one to look at. his website's here: rickgriffinstudios.com

That One Guy (See Below) 2/3/17That One Guy (see below) (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there is currently no article for Housepets!, nor for the Ursa Major Awards, this would probably not be very informative to readers. There are a lot of works in Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters, but we need reliable, independent sources to determine which should be mentioned. If there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources, you could consider writing the article first.

Wikipedia has very strict rules about how images are used, and images taken from the web are almost never usable for legal and philosophical reasons. Wikipedia:Image use policy has the details. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that fursuit be merged into furry fandom. The content of the fursuit article can easily be explained in the context of the furry fandom, and the furry fandom article is of a reasonable size that the merging of fursuit will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The merge will not be verbatim, it will only incorporate the properly cited information. Furry-friend (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose there are plenty of fursuits outside of furry. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose we need a different article that analyze fursuits with its own variety of external links, and yeah there are plenty of fursuits outside furry fandom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:6E1A:5600:795B:DE91:94FB:AF1 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fur suits" are not the same as "fursuits", per the references in the article. They have a very specific meaning directly tied to the furry fandom. Furry-friend (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Like the other two votes, there exists fursuits outside the fandom. Proper sources would be needed to back this up, though. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough articles to make fursuits independently notable, regardless of whether the term only applies to furries or not. Plenty of news articles specifically mention fursuits. [2] [3] [4]Rar91 (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccawards.com/2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821023802/http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/lifestyle.txt to http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/lifestyle.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205050919/http://www.wpxi.com/news/16721130/detail.html to http://www.wpxi.com/news/16721130/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414201132/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_575023.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_575023.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccawards.com/2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904201818/http://www.cannedgeek.com/images/sharedfiles/fss_report_finaldraft.PDF to http://cannedgeek.com/images/sharedfiles/fss_report_finaldraft.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129030403/http://www.larping.org/tosho-web-redemption-larper/ to http://www.larping.org/tosho-web-redemption-larper/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021404/http://www.furrynewsnetwork.com/2013/09/kusa-the-arctic-fox-gets-web-redemption-on-comedy-centrals-tosh-0/ to http://www.furrynewsnetwork.com/2013/09/kusa-the-arctic-fox-gets-web-redemption-on-comedy-centrals-tosh-0/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712153806/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_515974.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_515974.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference vandalism

@Furry-friend and Rockclaw1030: I'd like to open this discussion between the two of you to resolve the dispute over the usage of certain references in this article. IMHO, I would not use the first removed reference to describe the fandom, as it talks mostly about the chlorine incident at Midwest FurFest 2014. I have no opinion in regards to the other references in question. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The second citation is circular sourcing to Wikipedia (Wikipedia → print copy of Wikipedia → Wikipedia). Furry-friend (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Both references have nothing to do with the information preceding them. If we assume good faith they are irrelevant and should be removed, regardless of the author's intent. A cursory glance at Rocklaw1030's contribution history leads me to believe that they routinely plant irrelevant unformatted "citations", which is why I would not assume good faith in this case. Good faith or not, they need to be removed. Furry-friend (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll have you know ,Furry-friend, that I do not "routinely plant irrelevant unformatted "citations"" None of my citations are irrelevant, and if they are unformatted, I am sorry. I just copy the url. But I never vandalize. The pertinent information is always in the site cited. You may not know this, but I am a furry myself, and I love they furry fandom. The paragraph in the article from http://www.mcac.maryland.gov was as follows: "The hotel was hosting the Midwest FurFest, a convention where many attendees don animal costumes and "celebrate furry fandom, that is, art, literature and performance based around anthropomorphic animals," according to the event's website." If you agree that is not good enough, then I won't put it back. But do not post libel things about me.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Both that reference and the circular source were tangentially related to the furry fandom, and since your contribution history is filled with adding frivolous references your actions appear as vandalism. Stop adding bare URL references and stop adding references just because they mention the topic. A reference should discuss the topic, it shouldn't just cursorily mention it. Referencing furry activities to an article about a violent incident because it contains one sentence about furry activities has all the appearances of vandalism. Furry-friend (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, the latest reference you added kind of dances around the topic of sex; "While furry-themed pornography does exist, the furry fandom is not defined around this fact" and "The high proportion of LGBTQ members of the furry fandom (relative to the general population) is likely a product of several factors, including the fandom's origins and its norms of openness and inclusiveness"; those same norms create a high proportion of sexual fetish activity. The doctor is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He mentions sports fans and car fans, but you won't find over 50% of sports and car fans with a preference toward porn-related sports and cars media. A sports fan will primarily consume sports games and sports celebrity related content; a furry fan, on average, consumes predominantly porn. I believe comparing this data (published by the doctor in the interview) to similar data from the sports and car fandom will show just how much the furry fandom is skewed towards sex. Furry-friend (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that argument would work with anime fans as well? Just curious. --Conti|✉ 12:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexualization is institutionalized in the anime and manga fandom in ways that are unparalleled in other fandoms. Maybe the best parallel is the film industry, which has an entire industry arm dedicated to sex. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any studies of film buffs as their own subculture. These are all very hairy topics that need a lot of research. With the current state of social sciences these questions may go unanswered for a long, long time. At the very least, Wikipedia articles should avoid isolated studies until further research is made. Furry-friend (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable persons

As much as possible, please incorporate wikilinks to "notable persons" into the prose of the article. Placing them in a list provides no context for the reader, and creates false balance between the persons named: a minor artist is placed next to the most significant historian of the fandom. It's like having a list of Americans and putting George McGovern next to George O'Hanlon. Furry-friend (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Questionable terminology in 'Sexual aspects' section.

Okay, in the 'Sexual aspects' section, there's a claim that furries (generally speaking) have a slight preference for pornographic artwork. Directly preceding that is a statement that only 30 per cent of women preferred pornographic artwork.

This statement is therefore misleading in a rather sexist way as it disregards an entire gender. It also slants the article with a bias as it's contradictory to the preceding statements. Even using an average between the men and the women, considering that only 0.9 per cent of men prefer pornographic artwork, the average with both genders considered would show that there's less of an overall preference for pornography; Not more.

As such, to correctly put it, it should be said that furry men/males have a slight preference for pornography. However, since this is stated directly preceding this line, I don't think it's even necessary to keep. What I'm getting at is that the 0.9 per cent preference among men is used to fallaciously justify a statement that furries (in general) have a slight preference for porn.

This is, as I said, misleading and/or sexist. It's demeaning to an entire gender to not be counted.

I think it's only there to add bias to the article, it's axe grinding.

As such, from the perspective of being professional (Wikipedia isn't TVTropes), I would recommend that the line in question be edited or removed. Even in its protected state, this article is such a target for vandalism. (77.107.172.208 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

---

I just checked the claimed inconsistency. The critized part is: "… males estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic, compared with 30.7% female. Furries have a slight preference for pornographic furry artwork over non-pornographic artwork." The data comes from the given reference "International Anthropomorphic Research Project: Furry Fiesta 2013 Summary" which you can find at IARP's website. For those authorized, please add the link to the reference. The first sentence correctly cites the referred data. The second seems to be the result of a misinterpretation of the following sentence: "The figure below shows that male furries were estimated to have a more positive attitude toward furry pornography than female furries, though, in general, both were predicted by participants to hold relatively positive views toward pornography." The sentence in question ("Furries have …") therefore has to be removed.

As I'm already checking the referred sources, there's another (intentionally?) poorly worded sentence, which sounds very negative: "A portion of the fandom is sexually interested in zoophilia (sex with animals), although a majority take a negative stance towards it." The referenced paper states: "Its [zoophilia] practitioners draw a distinction between zoophilia (love of/attraction to animals) and bestiality (sexual gratification derived from animals), […]. This distinction does not appear to be one commonly recognised in […] the furry fandom. " and "Overall 17.1% of furries identified as zoophiles". In my opinion the sentence in question has to be changed to: "According to an anonymous survey of 2008 17.1% of furries identify as zoophiles, compared to est. 10% of the general population, although not clear if the interviewee by zoophilia meant love of/attraction to animals or sexual gratification derived from animals (bestiality) as the distinction is not commonly recognised." --Dexter3player (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for new data to be added

Under Sexual aspects -- the data is from a 2011 study from UCLA.

If we cite Adjective Species, an independant source for surveying furries worldwide, you can see that data has significantly changed since 2011.

Is it worth including this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkmaneArweinydd (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

~~i would like to add more information about furry's for i feel like the information above does not provide enough information.~~

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Ling and its impact on this article

Concerning the upcoming This Is Life with Lisa Ling episode featuring furries, I'm curious as to whether it, in some way, can be used as a source for anything that isn't already in the article. There's also a CNN article that can be used otherwise/as well (I just wanted to confirm the reliability of such documentary-style series before adding this link as a refidea above). Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald156 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

On the mention of "scritching"

This article makes mention of "scritching" in the Role-playing section as a common activity. The source cited for it is a BBC article which provides no examples of it occurring, nor any testimonies from furries, or studies by professionals relevant to the topic, or statistics, or anything else that would confirm the activity existing in the fandom in the first place, let alone being common. The quotes in the source don't mention the term at all, only the author of the BBC article does so.

Some popular furries on YouTube have also denounced it as it would be harmful to a fursuit's longevity, so if it does happen, it is without a fursuit (the section mentions that fursuits are "used to enhance the experience"). I suggest removing the term from the section in question until a reliable source with evidenced claims can be found to replace the BBC article sourced for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaGarg (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done plus the whole paragraph as the same can be said for the other activities. I will, however, leave this thread open for further discussion if necessary. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Scritching" wasn't about fursuits, it was was always a role-play thing. That said, without a reliable source, we can't really add that, and all I have is personal experience in the fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Furry fandom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Furry fandom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Furry fandom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Mia's Index of Anthro Stories" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mia's Index of Anthro Stories. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"MyFursona" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MyFursona. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disney suing furries for decades?

I've reverted this edit, since it strongly misrepresents what the source actually says. The summary of "Disney, which has used its lawyers against furries for decades" is an amalgam of "For decades, [Disney] had been dealing with [furries]" and "By now, Disney lawyers know how to deal with that crowd". You've got to interpret the source in very specific ways to read that Disney therefore has been suing furries for decades, since there are plenty of other ways to "deal with" a fandom. Not to mention that, if that were true, there ought to be quite the number of primary sources available out there to support this. Personally, I am not aware of Disney ever suing a furry specifically, but I might be wrong on that one. But the idea of Disney having done so regularly for decades is pretty silly, to put it mildly, and is pretty much coming out of nowhere, with no other source I could find coming even remotely close to supporting such an extraordinary claim. I dare say that a random Cats review should not be the best source available for such a claim.

On top of that, the source mentions that it is likely that furries may embrace the new Cats film, whereas in reality, furries have roundly mocked and rejected the film just like everyone else. I'm only mentioning that to point out that the author of this review does not seem very knowledgeable about furries in the first place, making them a pretty poor source for this article in any case. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources available yet as to what "the furry reaction" has been? I've heard a lot of mainstream reviews, none positive, and quite a few of them have said, "Awful film, but the furries will like it", with variations from a more positive "at least the furries will" to a more sneering "only furries will". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No reliable sources, just the reactions on my Twitter feed. Which are almost universally "If furries had made this, the characters would actually look good." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, no, and I don't expect there to be any. "How furries react to film X" isn't exactly newsworthy, after all. All there is is anecdotal evidence, like popular twitter posts of furries mocking or disavowing the film. Which makes this a bit of an odd situation, I guess. The joke of furries being the only audience that will like the film is pretty obvious, it's just not supported by reality at this point. Not sure what to do about that. --Conti|✉ 16:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As further evidence, I would point to the many movie reviews of furry films that have been posted to the furry website [5] over the years, which run the gamut from highly favorable to highly unfavorable. Zootopia got highly positive reviews, Alpha and Omega got mixed reviews, and Norm of the North got hammered, to name three. I think this pretty well demonstrates that having furry characters is not by any stretch a free pass for a film being liked by furry fans. mwalimu59 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Flayrah's About page states that their news relates to the fandom, and that members submit their content to the site, which violates both WP:PRIMARY and WP:UGC. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that my edit misrepresented the article; WP:SYNTH is not needed to take away from it that, according to its author, Disney has used lawyers against furries for decades. I do not know of other cites supporting this (not that I'd ever looked into the topic before), but I also don't know of any saying otherwise, say examples of Disney expressing friendship/support for furries. (Come to think of it, the well-known rule at Disney parks against attendees dressing in costume can be seen as anti-furries.)

Based on the specificity of the incident recounted, it is reasonable to think that the author is making a more serious point than a throwaway joke about furries. Lawyers can act against furries without filing lawsuits; say, sending a cease and desist letter. Given the absence for now of other reliable sources saying one way or another, summarily rejecting this based on what you admit is personal experience/knowledge (or lack thereof) is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ylee (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you aren't presenting a coherent argument. I mean-

I do not know of other cites supporting this (not that I'd ever looked into the topic before), but I also don't know of any saying otherwise

-just shows that you don't have any reliable sources. The author makes an offhand comment that "Disney lawyers know how to deal with that crowd..." but does not say what they have done. That's why it's SYNTH to assert your statement. It's also hypocritical for you to state summarily rejecting this based on what you admit is personal experience/knowledge (or lack thereof) when you yourself have nothing but your personal knowledge (or lack thereof) to support your own argument.

All you do have is an anecdote presented with no evidence in a review of a non-Disney film. The most we can say is that it's this author's opinion, but I'd argue even that is undue weight, given it's an assertion without any corroboration. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Writing that their lawyers know how to deal with furries and writing that Disney has been "dealing with" furries for decades does not mean that Disney has been using lawyers "against" furries for decades. It implies that they are willing to use lawyers if they need to, but even that is implied and not explicit. Turning this into an explicit "Disney has been using lawyers against furries for decades" is an extraordinary statement that requires some sources that are a little more thorough than an introductory joke of a scathing film review. And, again, if it were true, there should be far more sources out there making the same claims. There are not.

As for Disney and furries, here's one of many articles pointing to Disney marketing the film Zootopia directly to furries. Joaquin Baldwin, one of the animators of Zootopia, was the guest of honor of Anthrocon in 2016. I very much doubt that Disney would allow either of those things to happen if they truly were to sic their lawyers on furries for decades due to some desire to stay as far away as possible from them, as the Cats review claims. As such, I highly doubt that - as the Cats review claims - the co-directors of Zootopia "went rogue" when they dressed in costume at some convention. That seems entirely in line with all the other sources that make it clear that Disney is friendly towards furries, not hostile. Which, in turn, makes me doubt the author's knowledge of the entire relationship between furries and Disney in general. Which, in turn, confirms my opinion that that entire introductory paragraph in that review is just a throwaway joke about furries that should not be taken seriously. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"See also" links to be or not to be?

I have a few times tried to include a couple of wikilinks under "See also" – "For comparison (other)": Cosplay and Live action role-playing game – but contributor User:HandThatFeeds keeps erasing them. I believe such comparisons ought to be helpful to readers who are not that familiar with the different varieties of "role-playing" in costumes. That's the real purpose of the "See also" linkings, the way I see it, to help readers get a better overview within a group of similar subjects, not just narrowing it down to topics immediately connected to the subject as such. I would like some feedback on this issue, please.--Bemland (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral on Cosplay being linked. It might be better suited to be linked from Fursuit (where it already is linked), but I suppose it could be linked here as well. I'm more iffy on Live action role-playing game, which seems tangentially related at best. Again, it seems more relevant for Fursuit, if at all. --89.204.139.226 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This effectively sums up my reasons for removing the See Also additions. The vast majority of furries do not own fursuits. Suiting is a minor part of the fandom, it simply stands out more. Thus Cosplay is not a relevant link here (though I agree it is valid for the Fursuit article). And LARPing is a different topic entirely. Though folks "role play" as animal people, a LARP is a much more public, organized venture with rules (ie. Vampire the Masquerade or boffer LARPs). Furry is just free-form imagination, and very little of it is really live-action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent at best about correlating furry fandom too closely with cosplay and LARPing, as it seems to further the notion that furry fandom is primarily about fursuits. While fursuiting is certainly a big part of the fandom, it is just one of many parts. Art was the focal point of the fandom in its early days and continues to be a huge part of the fandom. There is also furry literature, music, animation, puppetry, gaming (including online RPing), and spirituality, among other things. It's not surprising that fursuits command the majority of the attention in pictures and videos; after all, it's the fursuits that get people reaching for their cameras, but anyone who has spent much time in furry online communities or who has attended a few furry conventions could tell you there's a lot more to furry fandom than fursuiting. --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Kiwi Fox video

Just FYI to watchers, a video has been released including a reading of this Wikipedia article. I have made some edits in response to it, but I'm not sure what else can be done after this reading. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Hey there. Just wanted to add a few more images. Seemed bland. Francium-226 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

51. Whats is Furaffinity and how to use Fur Affinity Ajab12345 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done, is a WP:BLOG – Thjarkur (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

FurAffinity.net is an image-upload site for folks to share furry artwork. The link you provided... is not the site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

From the conventions section: "The world's largest furry convention, Anthrocon" Anthrocon is no longer the largest convention as seen here: https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/List_of_conventions_by_attendance. Changing it to "largest furry convention in 2008" requires no additional sourcing. Alternatively, the entire sentence could be edited to reflect the current largest convention instead. Xavienth (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xavienth:  Done—I very much appreciate you having read the rules on edit requests and followed them, and hope to see you around more. Understanding what we can use due to reliable sourcing policies is vital, and you gave me two options for how to proceed. In this case, I added Midwest FurFest as well, citing it to Flayrah. I understand some may think that site isn't an reliable source, but I think it is, per WP:OBSCURE. The site is well written, is well recognized among furries, and has an editorial policy, as well as an editor-in-chief under a real name. If Rappler is allowed, and trade rags are allowed, then an online-only trade rag ought to be allowed. Therefore, I believe Flayrah is an WP:RS. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, keeping in mind WP:PARITY (they're likely to report many things that don't matter enough to a general reader to make it into the encyclopedia), and that, as a furry-focused website, they're WP:BIASED towards furry being "good", whatever that means. But as a source for who's the largest, certainly they qualify... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Fandom

A documentary called "The Fandom" directed by an Ash Coyote (an alias for Ash Kreis) and co-directed by Eric “Ash” Risher though published under © Ashes 2 Ash was published recently. It may be useful if it be considered a viable source. Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLisDreaming (talk • contribs) 11:18, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a very good documentary, but given it's produced by fans that might run into WP:PRIMARY issues. We probably need a more broad consensus before using it to cite anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: No, I personally think you're stretching WP:PRIMARY to breaking point. Let me draw some analogies: we wouldn't say that a documentary about a media franchise, e.g. Sonic, Mario, etc., was a primary source if it were directed/produced by a fan. We'd say it's a WP:BIASEDSOURCE, biased towards the quality of those franchises, but reliable for facts that aren't "Sonic is a fun game". This is similar to what I wrote about Flayrah in § Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020 (my self-reply). We have to be careful primarily not to use either Flayrah or the documentary to source things that are too obscure for general readers and not to source it to say things like "furry is not sexual" or "furry fandom is harmless fun" or whatever, but there's a lot we can get out of it beyond that. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a breaking point, but more that we should be quite careful how we use the documentary for any factual citations. I agree, we're better off using clearly secondary sources for controversial statements, and mostly use this documentary for basics or for things not covered in other media, ie. the original creator of "fursonas" is first identified in this documentary.

(As a disclaimer, I've been a furry since 1994, when I first learned the fandom existed.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the refideas I placed at the top of this Talk page are all third-party reviews of this very documentary, and can easily be used to expand on what is already in this article if necessary. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Article created: The Fandom Jalen Folf (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020

I would like added that the basis of being a furry is like anthropomorphic animals. (link a wiki page for anthropomorphic) Being a furry starts with liking anthropomorphic animals and ends with if you consider yourself one. Mixxup (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, please provide reliable source(s) that verify any claims made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Update first cover image to one more expressive

I think that the cover photo (two guys using fursuit) isn't good to be a self-descriptive and introduction to explain what is the furry fandom. It's just one of the specific features.

I propose that we could swap this image with the one used in Sociological aspects section, because it's more generic. It's the image used on Portuguese version. Keplerbr (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I think swapping those photos would work better for the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Everything in the sexual section dose not apply to the fandom its a part of it but it gives a bad rep to the community to new people like young furs! please i beg you i beg you with everyting you have to remove the sexual section and put it on a diffrent wikipedia page FurryFixer (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Just changing the picture of it, as it does not represent the furry fandom well. LeoPinty (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You will not be allowed to edit this page through this process; instead, please upload and link to the image you'd like to use if it follows our guidelines and another editor may add it in. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 00:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Furnation

the website furnation was closed in 2017, however this page doesn't say that. can this be fixed, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.68.226 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a source that says this? Jalen Folf (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's Some Sources, but I don't know if any of them "Count" as a proper wikipedia source or not Rabbithawk256 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sexual aspects most likely outdated

The sexual aspects section in particular has issues. Almost all the sources in the sexual aspects are over 10 years old. There are only 3 sources in that section that aren’t older than 10 years.

The age of the source can affect the reliability of the source. Not to mention the furry fandom is a lot bigger than it was years ago, the fandom has changed in recent years, and there are sources out there saying that the whole sexual aspects is an overblown stereotype.(I’ll present sources in the discussion later.)

So I think it might be a good idea to mark the sexual aspects section with needs update and try to find more recent sources on that. As a matter of fact it might be a good idea to mark many things in this article with needs update tags and try finding more recent sources as well. (I’ll comment more later it’s just I don’t want to make a extremely long comment.)CycoMa1 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. The whole section needs more recent cites & probably rewritten. I'd also argue the Yiff article should probably be merged into this section, there's no point in that being a separate article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I’m kinda mixed on whether or not yiff should be merged, I’m gonna wait and see what other editors think about that. Also for some reason the sexual aspects section treats acts like the term yiff is a term that’s taken seriously.

But, the article on Yiff basically says that term yiff is mostly a tongue-in-cheek term.

Also, for some reason this article acts like the furry fandom is exclusively for adults. When reality there are sources that have mentioned there are children in the fandom and even some statistics on young furries.

Also the Sociological aspects section relies heavily on one source.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is looking more and more like the article needs a rewrite from the ground up. I may look into that next week when I have a bit more time off.

As for Yiff, I don't understand why it even exists as a stand-alone article. There's a lot of cites in a very short space that don't really say much beyond "it exists," so I was thinking merge into here & just make a short paragraph or so about the term being used in the fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a point there on yiff. But, I’m still gonna wait and see what other people think.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Also with regards to my statement about there being younger furries out there. The section on furry lifestyle literally says this. A majority of furries connect to the fandom in their teen years. I even found this and this. So yeah this isn’t an 18+ only subculture.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I decided to tag this article with multiple issues. Because after reading statements from other editors and what I have said earlier, I just realized this article has way too many issues. ( I have a lot more say but, I don’t want this comment to be too long.)

To be honest I’m kinda questioning the neutrality of this article a bit.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of missing information

I looked through the sources and apparently the sources that are currently cited here say a lot more information on certain aspects. However, the article leaves out some of these details.

Like one of the sources that has been cited in this article for a decade mentions that 20% of furries are neo-pagan. This interesting because I assumed most furries were atheists.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Need help

Sorry if I kinda messed up this article. I must admit it kinda looks like a mess at the moment.

It’s just there is a lot of information regarding this topic that is missing this article. The reason I’m doing a lot of work on this because the furry fandom is a lot bigger than it was years ago. I’ll try my best to fix things up and try to make the article flow better.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: One thing I noticed is some of the content should not be in WIKIVOICE, such as "the community is also known for being diverse and accepting". This seems like stating opinions as facts, and should probably be attributed. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I fixed it up a bit. I kept the mention of it being diverse because a lot of sources have also called it diverse. Also the surveys on its demographics also indicate it’s a diverse community.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Well known" and attribution

Just a couple of things.

Firstly the statement that Furries are "well known" on the internet is not supported by the cites that follow it. Nor does anything in the article demonstrate they are "well known". Certainly they are on the internet, and can be found on the internet, and the article has plenty of examples of this. But does that make them "well known", or just "known"? "Well" is very much a statement of opinion. And "well known" by who? The internet is full of everything and frequented by many. Who among them is doing the knowing and who is deciding the degree to which they know?

Secondly, the article doesn't need all the "According to.." statements of fact. Attribution are really only needed with matter of opinions. If the cite says it, and the source is considered reliable, then the article can simply state it, and the reader can decide if they trust the source by reference to the cite. Otherwise the whole tone of these statements is that the article is distancing itself from what is said. If the fact is dubious, or the source not reliable, then it shouldn't be in the article at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: With regards to statement of well known on the internet.

This source for example says this. In 2017, most people who live online know roughly what furries are, though the “fandom” (as furries call themselves) is still woefully misunderstood. and This source says If you spend much time on the Internet, you’ve probably heard of a subculture known as “furries” — and if your only exposure to furries has happened online, you probably have largely negative associations with the furry community.

The sources are basically saying, people who have been on the internet know what furries are.

Also with regards to the second statement. It is written as “according to” so we can stick to WP:VOICE. Because sometimes sources don’t always agree with each other or there is a debate. Like some reliable sources says only a minority of furries are into furry porn while others say most are into it. This is probably due to the fact that the sexual aspects in the furry fandom are controversial and there is probably debate over it.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually I do see your second point. So I’m gonna go through the article and remove “according to” to non controversial statements.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

But your conclusion that 'people who have been on the internet know what furries are.' is not what the article says, or what the sources say. Where is the "well" in "well known" coming from? Your first sources says "people who live", that is people who spend a great amount of time online. That is a small percentage of "people who have been". Then your second source says "If you spend much time", again not just "people who have been". Your first source says "know roughly", that is far from being "well known". Your second source says "heard of", which again is nothing like knowing well. So saying "well known on the internet" is an unsupported overstatement in both regards.

Besides that, the statement is peacocking. The article should be telling the reader about the subject, not making assertions about how "well known" this is to a vaguely defined everyone else. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess you have a point. I’ll just remove.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

This addition to the lead seems problematic in some aspects to me.

• I've already removed the reference to pedophilia for multiple reasons. The article itself does not discuss that issue at all, and the lead should only mention topics actually discussed in the article. In addition, it's one singular example to justify a sentence saying "some hold the belief that furries are dangerous". I'd expect the source to say as much, then: That people believe this about furries. Instead, the source is about a specific case. That seems like an inappropriate use of sourcing to me, since it does not support the claim made.
• I have a similar problem with the wording regarding bestiality. First of all, why "bestiality" when the rest of the article uses "zoophile"? Second, the sentence reads "due to allegations and cases related to [...] bestiality", yet neither source provided actually talks about allegations of "cases related to bestiality". Instead, both sources talk about some furries self-identifying as zoophiles (as mentioned in the article itself). Those are two very different things. So, again, the sources do not support what is written.
• "Some hold the belief that furries are a dangerous and deviant group of people". I feel we really need some proper sources for a strong claim like that specifically. Again, nowhere in the article is this supported. Furries are perceived negatively by some and we do have source for that, but "dangerous and deviant"?
• "They have been portrayed in the media as "obsessed with sex". This is mentioned in the article, but it's about furries perceiving to be portrayed as such, instead of actually being portrayed as such. So that statement is not correct.
• "Males, homosexuality, and bisexuality tend to be over-represented in the furry fandom." I have no issue with the statement itself, but I'm not sure if it belongs in the lead. Anime and manga fandom mentions nothing about demographics or sexual preferences in the lead, either, and I'm not sure why it should. Neither do Gamer or Geek or Trekkie, all predominantly male fandoms as well. What makes furries so special in this regard?
• Why should the lead mention such aspects when it doesn't even mention far more prominent aspects of the fandom like fursuits? Not saying that it should, but it seems fairly odd that it is that way currently.

I'm not sure if the paragraph should be reworked or just outright removed, but it doesn't seem to me like it should stand as it is. --Conti|✉ 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Conti: I've edited the lead based on your feedback. The only thing I didn't change is the sentence on the demographics, which I think is due weight given how much detail the article goes into about it. ––Formal ^talk 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I suppose then my musing wanders to the question as to why the demographics of this fandom is so much of interest, as opposed to the demographics of other fandoms, but then that's not a criticism of the lead or your paragraph. --Conti|✉ 15:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, FormalDude, since you insist: why are we putting this "bestiality" accusation front and center on the lede, with citations, and WP:WEASEL-wording it with "some hold the belief"? I don't think putting this in the lead is appropriate, and any citations should be in the body anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: MOS:LEADCITE, which is applicable here, states that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I believe citations in this case make the claim more easily verifiable. I also believe the claim is due weight. It's not WP:WEASEL wording when some people actually do hold that belief, according to the article and its sources. If you're stuck on the word deviant perhaps something like "Some have a negative connotation of furries due to their association with zoophilia" would be better. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not WP:WEASEL wording when some people actually do hold that belief

Er, no, that's precisely why it's weasel wording. You can always find someone who holds the belief, but the question is A) whether that belief is even relevant to the topic, B) if there's enough of a notable group to include it in the article, and C) how much WP:WEIGHT to give to that opinion. But just saying "some hold the belief" does not help the reader at all. Who are "some" beyond a nebulous, hand-wavey group we've not identified? Scholars? Pundits? Internet trolls? We need to be more clear who is saying it.

Second, my main objection is that this is not something that should be in the lead. It's putting undue emphasis on this one aspect of a minority of the fandom. It would like be going into Anime and including a cited paragraph in the lead about how some fans are into lolicon (aka pedophilia). It's sensationalist to put that kind of thing right up front.

I don't object to a well-cited, well-worded section about this. (And we already have a section on sexuality in the fandom.) But we need a more substantial statement than "some random people say it happens, IDK." I'd phrase it more that a small subset of furries are also into zoophilia, with the appropriate cites. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the demographics, there are a lot of sources that go in depth on the demographics for the furry fandom. I don’t see this being the case for other fandoms.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It started in 1980s

Please stop removing the mention that it started in the 1980s.

Two reliable sources have indicated there is agreement it started in the 1980s. Fred Patten stated there is a general agreement on this.

It’s just the exact origins are unclear because it’s not like other fandoms like Star Wars fandom or Star Trek fandom where it started with the first episode or movie.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

[6] is perhaps more neutral wording given the totality of the sources and the text of § Origins, which contradicts your view. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The editors here need better communication and collaboration

I feel like there is some lack of communication between editors on this article. There some big reverts going on without communicating reasons in edit summary and the collaboration here isn’t ideal.

Like someone removed the mention that media hasn’t viewed the fandom positively in the lead without explanation.

There was also an edit war over zoophilia being mentioned in the lead and I didn’t see consensus on whether or not it should be mentioned in lead.

If we are gonna make reverts or changes can we at least make them small edits with edit summaries. Like instead of removing 3000 bytes in one edit with no edit summary, you should make like 9 edits to remove 3000 bytes and explain why you removed that stuff in edit summary.

I’m just saying it makes things easier, the WikiProject Furry is semi-active and most of the top editors for this article are inactive. We need to collaborate better.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also we might want to move some things to other places.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: Are you talking about Special:Diff/1061871774? If so, (and even if not,) if you want better communication part of that is WP:PINGing editors you're talking about and actually linking diff's you're talking about. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: That’s one case.

I remember FormalDude putting zoophilia in the lead and other editors reverted him. If you look at this discussion. Many editors were against it’s mentioned in the lead.

Then I removed the mention of zoophilia in the lead then he added it back in here. I think we might need a vote of some kind.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that issue, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but also if you think the FormalDude zoophilia edit dispute needs a discussion, you could start a section for that with all the diff's. A consensus can probably be reached re: wording, editors would in the ideal case make proposals on talk if it's particularly contentious (which it sounds like this definitely would be). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I might move stuff

I move stuff here to other places because the sources go in depth on certain aspects of the fandom. Like I might move zoophilia to the article on zoophilia because the sources go more in depth on that aspect of the fandom. I’m saying these sources are reliable.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: Don't whitewash the article. It might make sense to copy the text there, but not to move it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: the article is honestly getting a little too long which is why some editors have been reducing the word count. And I do kinda agree with them.

But, there is a lot more on sources on the topic in recent years and I don’t want certain views to be excluded. Here on Wikipedia aren’t we supposed to represent the majority view and some minority views as well.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: Removing text is not the only way to resolve article length issues, may also consider a WP:SPLIT. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I was thinking that too. Like for some reason there are a lot of sources that go in depth on demographics of the furry fandom. I personally I find it weird there are sources that go in depth on demographics but, a lot of reliable sources touch on this topic.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need to go over the exact dates the fandom reached specific countries?

It seems redundant to go over every single year that the fandom started hitting specific countries. Especially since this is an internet based subculture where geological boundaries aren't limits.

From D0nk M3m3s (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@D0nk m3m3s: I agree with you and culled the section in Special:PermaLink/1061871774. Especially statements like there are no more than 100 furries in Peru are impossible to state as facts. If we wish to discuss the nationalities of furries, we should cite academic studies and not pieces by various national newspapers discussing only those furries wealthy enough to attend one national convention or another. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I will say this the article on Anime and manga fandom lists it’s history in various countries. Like the article mentions anime hit Europe in 1970s.

Also a lot of sources mention the earliest when it spread and when it started in certain places. Even ones outside of the Anglosphere do this for some reason.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You do need to keep in mind the internet became more accessible to certain parts of the world at different times or some of these countries weren’t in ideal states at the time.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I find it weird that they would go in depth on stuff like that. But you do need to keep in mind the concept of furries is considered weird to most people.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Inspiration is a little vague

The whole inspiration is a little confusing to me and honestly vague.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sexual aspects or media representation in the lead

According to MOS:LS it says. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

There are many notable and reliable sources that address the sexual aspects of the furry fandom and the poor media reception. I mean come even sources from Asia and South America are aware of this.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the specific wording you're proposing? Seems to me these topics should be covered in the lead if there is RS. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the ideal wording should be. Reliable sources do mention that media hasn’t viewed the fandom in a good light.

I decided to comment first because I’m not sure what’s the best way to mention it in the lead and I’m not sure if everyone is on board with the idea.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Grown since 1990s

Okay I think people are a little confused about this so I’m gonna quote what [this one source says.] on page 2.

Since the 1990s Furry Fandom has continued to grow in membershipCycoMa1 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I decide to put it back in the article. The source is reliable and it’s very recent as well.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna quote the entire page for y’all to see It can be difficult to pinpoint a year in which the Furry Fandom started due to the unusual nature of the fandom itself. Unlike other fandoms it is not based on a TV show or a film franchise. Whereas these types of fandoms are easy to historicize as you can pinpoint the start, such as when people watched the TV pilot for instance, there is no singular cultural touchstone for Furries. However, consensus among Furies themselves seems to suggest that the fandom started in the 1980s; despite not being based on any particular base . Furries who have been in the fandom since the 1980s often cite an media increase in popularity and exposure beginning in the 1990s (Nyareon 2015, 7). There was, however, a small contingent of what would become part of the Furry Fandom in as early as April 1976. This coincided with the launch of Vootie "The fanzine of the Furry Animal Liberation Front, which ran until February 1983 (Patten 2015, 36). However, the first specific Furry publication was not available until May 1987 and was named Fur Version, but this ceased distribution in November 1990 (ibid.). While the fandom has now spread around the globe, its earliest documentable origins are in the United States. Referring to himself as a prominent "Furry historian, Fred Patten states his belief that the concept of 'Furry' originated in earnest from Steve Gallacci's Albedo Anthropomorphics. This comic strip was being sold at a US science fiction convention in 1980 (Patten 2012). The internet has helped to facilitate the rapid and mass dissemination of artwork and fiction - previous hard copy magazines and fanzines were previously hard to find for those not already within the fandom. Technological advancements resulted in an increase in communication as Furries used internet services such as Skype to communicate with friends if they are unable to attend Fur Meets (Shoji 2015, 17). Since the 1990s Furry Fandom membership has continued to grow and now Furry conventions are held in several countries over the course of the year. So yeah.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Furscience reliable on BDSM

Hey @Psiĥedelisto: I noticed you said Furscience isn’t reliable regarding BDSM. I kinda want to discuss that with you.CycoMa1 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: Source reliability is not constant across all the material in them. Their reliability waxes and wanes depending on what they're being used to assert. For example, consider WP:RSP and its description of the consensus regarding the website The Daily Dot: The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. FurScience is reliable when it talks about the furry fandom only, so it is reliable for the statement A 2019 survey found that 39.2% of adult furries are into BDSM. It is unreliable for any statement on which fetishes are common in the general non-furry public. As I wrote in my WP:ES:

FurScience is a reliable source only within its area of expertise. It is not a valid source for what the general public believes or what general attitudes are.

I'm surprised you didn't attempt to answer this concern here, I don't know what there is to talk about besides restating the problem with the sourcing. This problem is rife in this article, by the way, I just happened to notice it in § BDSM tonight. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Furscience is run by sociologists and physiologists. [Dr. Sharon Roberts] literally has a PHD in sociology and has studied in mental health. And [Dr. Courtney Plante] literally has a PHD in psychology. Do you think individuals who study in those fields know nothing about fetishes or statistics on the general population?CycoMa1 (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: We don't judge individual reliability, we judge source reliability. Given medical doctors who have gone through all the proper training have claimed COVID-19 is a hoax, and all sorts of experts have held to WP:FRINGE theories of their fields, this is not a valid argument within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article sourcing. Read WP:SELFPUB again:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

— WP:SELFPUB, emphasis theirs

I don't have to judge what Drs. Roberts or Plante know or don't know about statistics or psychology, that's not the question. The question is how reliable is FurScience. As a WP:SELFPUBlished source by a WP:NORG containing experts who research the furry fandom, it is only reliable regarding the furry fandom. You are in the wrong, and attempting to make it about whether I think certain individuals know things is not helpful, as if I'm besmirching their PhD's. By the way, that is precisely why we judge sources and not individuals, so those kinds of accusations aren't raised. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I think you’re missing my point. I only brought up certain individuals as examples. I understand your point about sources being reliable for its field of expertise.

The two individuals I brought aren’t the only people who study in sociology or psychology. I mean look at [this] there are multiple sociologists and psychologists. Also the same individuals who published that study had a paper published to [oxford] so theses individuals aren’t some random people who claimed to be experts.

Also I don’t understand how Furscience counts as self published. It’s own website says it is supported by various institutions as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Or am I unaware of Wikipedia’s definition of self published?

Also doesn’t the article on BDSM say this BDSM is common among both heterosexual and homosexual men and women, and in varied occurrences and intensities. Even the statistics in that article support the claim it’s common. Also I have read sources on fetishes before and I have seen sources in the field of gender or sexology saying it’s the most common fetish. Do you think it might be a better idea to add other sources in the field of sexology on whether or not it’s the most common fetish?CycoMa1 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to make things clear I totally understand your argument here I just don’t see how furscience counts as self published.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Or I have a better idea how about we say it’s a common fetish instead of saying it’s the most common fetish.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: That's fine, I only objected to the word most. Yay, consensus. Copy a cite from the BDSM article as you wish and find the time, I will write later why I think FurScience is an WP:SPS, albeit certainly a borderline case, and if their studies start getting picked up by more reputable journals, I could see changing my mind. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic

 – As consensus regarding the text has been reached, this off topic discussion regarding an issue not of ongoing concern to this article will be finished at User talk:CycoMa1 § WP:SPS as it relates to FurScience. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

"Although the fandom has no exact starting point, its generally agreed to have begun during the 1980s" its should be it's Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furry_fandom&type=revision&diff=1064880307&oldid=1064667922 Cannolis (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)