Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sexuality in the article

Obviously this discussion page is heavily trafficked and the subject is contentious. As a total outsider coming in and reading the discussion, it seems like people are thinking that there's NPOV, and then there's "anti-furry", or visa versa. I just wanted to point out that although sexuality has a large section in the article, it's not mentioned at all in the introduction which is all most users are likely to read. This seems like a costly omission when the prevailing view of most (albeit mislead) people is that being a furry is nothing but a sexual kink. If no one corrects this, I'll go ahead and add something to the introduction (toward the end) to the effect of "The prevailing view among the general population, especially in non-furry related internet communities, is that being a 'furry' is simply a sexual fetish, and that its central activities are sex, and the production of anthropomorphic porn. (and then some references) While some who describe themselves as furries enjoy these practices, the community encompasses many other aspects."Youdontsmellbad 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We would need to find the references that say that before putting it into the lede. The area may be worth mentioning there, but to make a broad claim about the view of the general population requires conclusive proof. I am not aware of any surveys that have been done on this particular topic, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no such prevailing view. That is why the current article doesn't say that there is one. The average person on the street simply does not know anything about furry fandom. The focus has therefore tended to be on the ways in which furry fandom has been portrayed by media - because that is something that is more easily measured without such surveys that would probably result in 98% "Don't know"'s.

Another thing to consider is that people can espouse a point of view while actually knowing it to be false. I've run across plenty of people who know that furry fandom does not actually match the stereotype they repeat, but admitting that would spoil the joke - it's like making fun of the Amish, or the French people . . . or just about any group.

If you're looking to improve the article in this area, there are quite a few references here - many are likely to have journalistic statements about current public opinion, which could at least be attributed, rather than making a general statement like "people think X" which can't be proved. GreenReaper 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Greenreaper says, you correctly identify this assumed prevailing viewpoint as being misleading (outright wrong, actually). To add a misleading perspective to the most viewed section (or any section) of the article would be a disservice to both the article and its readers. The article's purpose is to inform, not mislead or reinforce false presumptions. - Rigel 71.171.103.70 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think this is the prevailing view of furries doesn't make it true. I think adding such original research to the first paragraph is unnecessary. This is also a dead horse; the article doesn't omit anything. Just because some people are trying to create controversy doesn't mean there is one. —Ochlophobia (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Rigel was agreeing with us here. No need to react to his post as if it were like some of the troll posts we get here. If you were referring to Youdontsmellbad's comment, I'll give him credit for being more civil about it than said trolls and stating the idea in a plausible manner, even if we disagree with the suggestion. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Greenreaper and Rigel, actually. —Ochlophobia (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having spent a lot of time on the Super Smash Bros. Brawl boards at GameFAQs lately, I can say that I agree with the guy who started this section... a lot of people think that furries are all porn-lovers. It's actually rather silly... why won't they get the message? Not all furries are porn addicts! Geez! --Luigifan (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GreenReaper. It isn't fair to assume that people automatically equate "furries" with "sex," especially since almost no one I have talked to (that isn't already a furry) has even heard of them before, including a forensic psychologist specializing in sexuality and a sociology professor who teaches a class on social and sexual deviance. Therefore, it is unnecessary for sexuality to be in the introduction when it is an offshoot of the larger picture based on (false) speculation. The Phoenix (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't listen to the furry editors here, it's important to communicate the truth, regardless if it is emotionally damaging or shameful. Google searching for "furry sex" will provide all kinds of evidence.--Nationalism (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH is the only fitting response to such a comment. -- Kesh (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. There's something to be said for this... (385,000. Woo!) —Dajagr (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Second result for "furry sex" on Google leads to this article. Evidence?..

Either way, Google searches are not a reliable source and never were. We can very well assume that some people equate "furry" with "sex" or whatever, but, it would be just that - an assumption - and, as Kesh already said, the WP:TRUTH. As long as it is, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Furry POV

Having read through the article a couple of times, I have to say I feel a pro-furry POV is present in this article. I would like to discuss the possibilities of a re-write with those who edit this page.

Please note that I am not talking about sources or adding an 'anti-furry' section or a 'criticism' section. If they can't be sourced, then they can't go in. What I am talking about is merely re-writing the article to make it a dispassionate review of what is known about the fandom.

I am not a furry myself, but with the amount of anti-furry feeling online I can understand that furry editors may feel they have to 'redress the balance' in the eyes of readers. I would argue that Wikipedia is not the place for that, and the furry fandom can best be served by having a dispassionate and objective article. Man from the Ministry (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are issues with the wording of the artice, I suggest you edit the page yourself. There is no need to come here first - the note about page protection does not apply to you as your account is more than four days old, so be bold! As for what is known . . . if you can find a reference stating something, there is no particular need to discuss it before adding it. Just make sure the reference says what you think it does, and that it is from a reliable source. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. This page is constantly monitored by furries. --72.207.228.114 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with biased editors, take it up with the cabal in the normal fashion. Snide hints and ominous remarks really do not serve anyone. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies

I noticed some redundancies in the article that could be cleaned up. I don't have a Wiki account, so I can't edit the page. Perhaps one of the editors could make things more concise?

"from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal, supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make when mating" is redundant with "The explanation offered for the etymology of the term within the subculture is that it is an onomatopoeia for the sound foxes make when mating."

These four can probably be combined: "from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal" and "The term is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or material" and "This applies to sexual activity and interaction within the subculture whether online or offline" and "it is also applied to sexual arousal and to erotic material causing it." Yiff = sexual activity/arousal/interaction and erotic material. Don't need four sentences to browbeat readers with the same definition. - Rigel 71.171.103.70 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do people hate furries?

I've been trying to figure out why there is so much heat against furries, plushies, etc. I didn't even know they existed until I happened to catch the C.S.I. about them and everywhere I've gone for information is (like this article) fraught with vandalism and flaming. I've seen some pretty hard-core fetishism sites that didn't get this much emotional response. The first thing someone says that might be considered positive is considered pro and the first thing someone says that might be negative is considered anti. Sci-fi cons and Sturgis don't seem to illicit this kind of emotion. My question is why this article doesn't address the clear-cut, across the board emotionalism? I'm not pro or con, I just want to know. 121.118.169.69 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Curious

To put it bluntly, people hate, because they can, and because they refuse to accept things that are different from the norm. Being as many Furries are artists and similer things, they're thus easier targets for harassment, due to being more prone to overeation, generaly if you ignore the Furry haters, they go away. Also the constant media bias directed at us doesn't help the image in the least.. as for the article, I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, due to it possibly being biased from either side, and is such a rather difficult thing to do neutraly.*I appologize for spelling and grammer, I ain't the best at writing a long responce* 72.91.158.226 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but I kind of meant that I thought a section in the article might be a good idea. I realize some people are going to hate things just because they don't seem to have anything better to do, but this phenomena appears to be specific to furry fandom. Media bias and the rest of it aside, there appears to be some other component I'm not getting. I've looked at a few of the external links and references and there is some mention of dissention within the fandom itself. I see people like to compare furry fandom with sci-fi and other genres in which conventioners dress up, but even when you see flames, it's usually some greasy kid with a one-syllable vocabulary blurting out something he heard his older sibling say. As I said, there appears to be a phenomena surrounding furry fandom . . . like the irrational hatred mimes used to provoke. I don't care about the pros and cons, I'm more interested in the who, what, where, and when. Why is optional. Thanks again for your response. Who knows, when I figure out this whole Wiki-world, I might do a little research and write it in myself. -Curious 121.118.169.69 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer the main question first - I think the emotionalism doesn't appear explicitly in the article because it comes up in unreliable sources. You've probably seen plenty of forums and where such things are discussed; but for Wikipedia we really need published media reports or surveys. Most of the media doesn't get as far as looking at such forums - or if they do, they might simply repeat what was said there, rather than reporting on the meta-fact that there were heated feelings involved. As far as I'm concerned it's fair game for the article if a reference can be found, as it's certainly true.

As for why there is that emotion in the first place - well, there are various reasons. For many, furry fandom is integrated into their personal identity to a level that few other hobbies reach. Furs often roleplay as characters who bear their name, and likely represent them everywhere as their avatar (thus making it harder to conceal the affiliation). They have a lot invested in it - even for those who do not have spiritual beliefs, the attachment can be to the level of belief.

As suggested above, many appear to hate furries because it is fun to do so. But there are people who really find the idea disturbing. Talking animals/funny animals are often seen as a children's topic, and it is considered odd for adults to be interested in them. Worse, what anthropomorphic entertainment there is in the world is usually designed for children - so when people see mature topics associated with it, there can be an unfavourable reaction. Then, there is the moral/religious issue of blending the difference between human and animal. The uncanny valley might also be a factor, though most furry artwork doesn't come quite as close to human as this (warning, somewhat NSFW, and very uncanny). The only way to be sure is to ask individuals, though they may not be able to give a specific reason. GreenReaper (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As you have answered my questions pertaining to the article, I'll address any further inquiries to your personal talk page; is that ok? I really appreciate your time and the time it has obviously taken to make this article informative and accurate and keep it that way. At the risk of sounding pro . . . this fandom does bring me back to a time I thought God forgot my tail. - Curious 121.118.169.69 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, or contact me off-wiki. As for the missing tail, come along to a convention and perhaps we can find you a prosthesis. *grin* GreenReaper (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I wrote near the thing on furvert a brief thing on "furfag". That is a more common insult, especially on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tailsfan2 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

lolwut

", of their characters."

whatever that means.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that typo. I've fixed it. (Although "lolwut" wasn't exactly the most helpful means of pinpointing the issue! Still, it got the message across.) —Dajagr (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

inconsistency

"supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make"-- the link to Wikitionary actually says that this explanation is apocraphayl, and that the word originally derived from a term in the foxish language. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Where can I find a Foxish to English dictionary? -- Kesh (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look here at WikiFur. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny. A made-up language isn't exactly a reliable source. -- Kesh (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Touche. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but other sources say that it comes from foxish as well. Plus, I would hope it was apocryphal; I wouldn't want to know how someone would go about finding out what sound an arctic fox makes while it is mating. The Phoenix (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Will this be a permanent thing, based on the controversial nature of the subject (just like George W. Bush)? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Interesting to note that a courageous 5-10% of furries are conservatives: More power to them!)

It was only intended to be for 24 hours. I asked the admin concerned to unprotect, but he seems to not be watching right now; I will ask at requests for page protection instead. GreenReaper (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't seem to have been a very useful change. Back to indefinite semi-protection? GreenReaper (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, it's only been a few random trolls, nothing really serious. Lots of watchers, if it gets worse we can certainly protect. (I need to practice with that magic button anyhow!) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as an observation, the page has undergone 16 different edit instances since the semi-protection was removed on the 18th of February (slightly more than one per day). 15 of those have been vandalism, and the remaining one was reverted as being uncitable and probably unnecessary. While the vandalism is so far easy enough to keep under control, I'll have to admit that removing protection doesn't seem to have been very beneficial, either. The question, I suppose, is whether this is just a fad in response to the protection being removed, or a steady state with the protection gone. It's been almost two weeks and the novelty hasn't apparently yet worn off. —Dajagr (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty standard, really - this has always been a bit of a vandal magnet. every once in a while, /b/ gets bored, I suppose. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection with science fiction and/or fantasy

Media (books, video, etc) with furry characters (anthropomorphic animals) has often been labeled as a metagenre (?). Personally, I would include furry characters with science fiction (because future methods could create furries) or fantasy (because furries are not real). Furries could be in a wild west story and be seen as a Western, but the same is said of Westworld of cyborg cowboys.

Because metagenre is not a defined word, where do furry characters fit in with other genres? frank (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Furry characters do not fit in with other genres. What they do is alter other genres. You can put furry characters in any kind of story, including historical dramas. But the presence of talking animals automatically shifts the story to a fantasy classification. And animal characters are common in fantasy. Especially children’s fantasy. I am not aware of any official citation that sets The Cowardly Lion apart as a different kind of literary character from The Tin Man or The Scarecrow. All are anthropomorphic fantasy characters, and there’s not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that the lion was set apart just because he happened to have fur.

Serious animal novels like Animal Farm and Jonathan Livingston Seagull were initially classed as allegorical fiction. It could be said that Aesop established a precedent for a genre of intellectual literature in which animal characters were put into human situations in order to demonstrate philosophical perspectives. Yet, there were never enough of these works being created that anyone ever thought to officially separate them from other works of allegorical literature.

Then there is sci-fi. Cross search anthropomorphic with sci-fi and you’ll see titles popping up like Doctor Who and Flash Gordon. Sci-fi and anthropomorphics just naturally go together. But sci-fi has a much broader definition of the term anthropomorphic. General sci-fi draws no distinction between half-animal people, humanoid robots, nor anything else that takes on a relatively human shape. Thus, as far as sci-fi is concerned, hybrid anthropomorphic creatures do not constitute a sub-genre of sci-fi. They are essential to the sci-fi genre itself.

Historically, the only people to have officially acknowledged animal characters as a genre are the comic artists of the 1940’s and 50’s who called the genre “Funny Animals.” The genre was established as an alternative to super hero comics and was almost exclusively dedicated to humor. And there was a very visible difference between funny animals in humor comics, animal based life forms in sci-fi, as well as the allegorical animal stories. It would be difficult to find any professional documentation saying there is any link between every use of animal characters in fiction.

Furry fandom does not connect all these literary concepts in any kind of official way. Furry fandom is merely a collection of people who profess an interest in a variety of entertainment forms that feature animal based characters. Everything furries like does not provide the basis for a genre, especially when what furries like tends to be so variable.

Bear all this in mind while trying to rationalize where to classify animal characters as a genre. Technically they are not a genre. The Furry Genre only exists in the perspective of a Furry fan. If you are looking for where the actual official genres lie, you should ignore the Furry perspective and look to the history of art and literature for the citations. And if you don’t find any citations, you should take that as a clue that the Furry collective is not a genre, it’s an interest.

As an illustration of how flexible and undefined the Furry interest is, I used to say you could not include Lassie as a Furry character because she wasn't anthropomorphic. But it only takes one furry announcing that he includes Lassie among his Furry interests, and suddenly Lassie is Furry. Likewise, how is 2 Gryphon Furry? Certainly not by participating in a genre based on animals. Rather, he is Furry because he says he’s a Furry, and because other people calling themselves Furries include him among their interests.

That's the problem with trying to write an article that attempts to portray a constantly evolving social group as a static fandom for something specific. The theory behind the article is inherently false. There is no genre, and Furry is not a fandom. Heh, I just thought of the perfect term to describe it. It’s a social anomaly.

If that’s the case, the article does an injustice to a fascinating and relevant topic. You guys really should change the name of the article to The Furry Sub-Culture and open this phenomenon up to better exploration. Perri Rhoades (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

article furry

Does the article Furry have to be Disambiguation.

>Furry is an adjective referring to something covered in fur. People would look up fur

>As a slang word, furry may also refer to:

> * A member of the furry fandom—fans of artwork, stories, and related products (comics, movies, costumes, etc.) which feature anthropomorphic animals This page

> * An animal character with anthropomorphic characteristics also known as: > o Funny animal in cartooning (which may have human type characters and fandoms referred to as Skins.) old term for furries

> o Talking animal similar category as furries.

>The Furries may also refer to the Super Furry Animals, a Welsh rock band. could be added to header —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsuarez2005 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a little uncomfortable with a direct redirect. Who really knows what people are looking for when they look up "furry"? Though I will admit that we seem to have taken over most of the top two pages on Google, which is a pretty strong endorsement for the online community. GreenReaper (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose a redirect due to (1) the popularity of the Welsh band and (2) the fact that many people are searching for the earlier term 'funny animal'. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychological POV

Sexual attraction to anything other than your own species is a sickness. Since furries often embrace a sexual side to their "lifestyle"... why hasn't it been discussed as a psychological disorder? Many furries are perfectly happy as they are, of course, but they'd still be wired differently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't a psychological disorder, it's just a harmless hobby. When you think about it, the ones with the irrational hatred for furries are the ones with real problems. It's obvious they tend to have low self-esteem and need to put others down to make themselves feel better. Be that as it may, I don't think we need to add a section about how anti-furries are mentally ill, as they're probably just not mature enough to deal with people different than them. Thanks for your comments. :) —Ochlophobia (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If by "psychological disorder" you mean "mental illness" (these words are essentially synonyms), then I believe you're incorrect. In order to qualify as a mental illness or disease, the condition must impair the individual's ability to function psychologically or socially, particularly enough to require psychiatric attention. I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences with furries. In fact, I've found furries to be very open and friendly people on the whole. This is irrelevant to the article, though, unless you're suggesting that furries should be portrayed as mentally ill people in this article. That would certainly be POV, and I doubt you would find any reliable sources to back up such an argument. In the absence of many references, articles like this should stick to objective, neutral facts. -kotra (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So those furries who are sexually attracted to creatures with animal heads are just practicing a hobby? I know there are nice ones, and I know there are troubled ones, but those who get off on something that isn't human are impaired in society, for the obvious reasons of finding love and fitting in with the usual same-species kind of people. I wouldn't say a gay man has a psychological disorder, but that's only because he's still considering his own real species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in the article, find some reliable sources and write up the information into the article. If you're just speculating, then the thought probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because of its policy of verifiability. However, this is not a forum for discussing the topic; this is a talk page for discussing the article. —Dajagr (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The infamous Vanity Fair article Pleasures of the Fur did in fact mention this topic:

Fox Wolfie Galen had never traveled much beyond his hometown until four years ago, when he went to a furry convention in California with another plushophile he had met on-line. Since then he has made it to conventions in Toronto, Chicago, and Albany, New York. Plushophilia began for him when he was around seven years old, even though he didn't own any stuffed animals. "It wasn't like I couldn't get them. I was interested; I just didn't make the connection. I knew I liked them, because I'd seen them on TV, or if I visited somebody else's house and they had plush. Or if somebody came along in a furry-animal costume, like a high-school mascot, I'd always sit close to where I'd think they'd be coming out." After pep rallies he would find himself so aroused that he would have to walk through the school's hallways with a book bag held in front of him. Growing up, he never fantasized about women. "If a mascot walked into a room surrounded by naked women, I'd be thinking about the mascot," he said.

[Scientist Katharine] Gates admitted she was a pervert, but only in the fantasy realm. "Little Red Riding Hood", for example: "I think that's incredibly sexy, and when I was a kid I used to masturbate to the fantasy of being eaten by a pack of wolves. And I still find that sort of an exciting image I can call that into my head when necessary." She likes Furry stuff, too. "Take my word for it, I've got a really dirty mind, and my dirty mind has gone to places that are beyond the pale. I think amputee stuff is hot, I think furry stuff is hot, I think slash fiction's hot, but as far as acting stuff out ... I mean, I've ridden pony boys and pony girls" -- people dressed up with bridles and saddles, etc -- "and I found that very exciting, but I'm uninclined to ask my husband to put on a saddle. And we find the ordinary, old vanilla stuff completely satisfying and very, very perfect." She considers the plushophiles to have a lot in common with practitioners of vanilla sex. "They may think about sex as often as we do, which is often, and they may think of stuffed animals instead of Pamela Anderson, but they're very ordinary people," she said. "Sex is not just what happens to the genitals. Everything is fetish fodder. I can't think of anything in this world that couldn't be sexualized by somebody."

And the ongoing controversy regarding media coverage of the fandom is covered in a succinct, NPOV manner within this Wikipedia article. It doesn't use the specific label 'mental illness' because no media source has. Even the most unsympathetic media articles tend to rely on shock quotes from people on the street that are unfit for an encylopedia. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be tiptoing close to invoking WP:FORUM when I bring this up, but wouldn't the sexual attraction many anime fans feel twoard catgirl, angel, demigod, ghost, extraterrestrial, goo, and demon characters also be a "psychological disorder"? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. But those odds and ends of otaku fetishes are no where near as documented or celebrated as furry fandom. A simple googling tells us that, as someone else noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact Check time. Googling "furries": 1,730,000 hits. Googling "otaku": 10,500,000 hits. Don't get me started on "anime". Googling "furries" "fetish": 127,000 hits. Googling "otaku" "fetish": 140,000. Even the obscure anime fetishes beat furry sex searches on Google any day by nearly 10-to-1. "tentacle" "rape": 1,050,000 hits. "guro": 1,120,000 hits. "catgirl": 1,340,000 hits. Even the popular nonsexual furry pasttime, fursuiting, doesn't get close. "fursuit": 205,000 hits. Let's not waste any more time on this. - Rigel 70.109.58.37 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in those quotes looks to provide anything like a professional psychological analysis of furry fandom as a whole. All you have is two individual accounts (and one who says she doesn't even have any difficulty or issue with ordinary sexual contact); to try to extrapolate a psychological profile of all of furry fandom from these two accounts would not only be original research, it would be bad research. If you want a psychological POV, you'll need to find some actual psychological research done about this topic. Speculation based on popular magazine interviews isn't the same thing. The anime question is also largely irrelevant, unless you can find some actual research done into the question of whether anime fans are psychologically abnormal specifically because of their hobby. If you find some actual research on this topic, by all means include it; if there are questions about it, I'm sure someone will bring that up. But, since it's by now clear that you feel that the psychology of furry fandom is important yet do not have any verifiable sources for that information, may I kindly suggest that you WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass for the time being, until you have something more to offer? —Dajagr (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this will have to wait until some professional interest is sparked. And by professional, I don't mean the shock media; once an independent documentary is inevitably made, then this subtopic will have the necessary (objective) citations. The reason I started this discussion in the first place was in wondering if such definitive psychological proofs existed. I guess not, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I a bit of a beating on dead horse, but... "Sexual attraction to anything other than your own species is a sickness." - It's not. Zoophilia ("Attraction to anything other than humans") is not considered a mental illness as the brief examination of the article and related citations suggest. No action required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draco 2k (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is, of course, if we're talking about about people who do feel such attraction within the fandom - and there are no readily available citations on that subject, to the point where we can't say for sure if such a phenomenon even exists - which is a bit of a miss for an article with a whole section dedicated to sexuality. --Draco 2k (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

This page is 79 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. —Ochlophobia (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No objection here. I would keep the discussions that are a couple weeks old, though, to give any people on holiday vacations a chance to respond. -kotra (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just wanted to make sure it was worth the trouble of creating an archive for November. Happy New Year! —Ochlophobia (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we ask for User:MiszaBot for help? It's a bot, it'll do this stuff automatically.

I propose this setup:

|algo = old(60d) (Anything more than 60 days old)

|archive = User talk:Furry_fandom/Archive %(counter)d (Creates new Archive section)

|counter = 9 (Starting with 9 since we already have 8)

|minthreadsleft = 5 (Always leave at least 5 discussion on Talk page)

Might contain technical mistakes; if anyone is actually willing to archive pages manually, please do. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)