Talk:Furry fandom: Difference between revisions
Ochlophobia (talk | contribs) m →Porn |
Ochlophobia (talk | contribs) m The sexual aspects of the fandom have already been covered sufficiently. |
||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
:::::::::::Poll the furries, here. If they tell the truth a large majority will admit to have viewed pornographic images of animal/human hybrid "furries" for a sexual reason.--[[User:72.207.228.114|72.207.228.114]] 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::::::Poll the furries, here. If they tell the truth a large majority will admit to have viewed pornographic images of animal/human hybrid "furries" for a sexual reason.--[[User:72.207.228.114|72.207.228.114]] 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::"If they tell the truth"? Sounds a lot like you've decided what the answer will be before you asked the question. :-) Wikipedia has too small and narrow a sample of furries to be valid, anyway. Try asking UC Davis to include it in a followup survey. Make sure they ask the control group if they've ever viewed pornographic images of ''humans'' for a sexual reason. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::::::"If they tell the truth"? Sounds a lot like you've decided what the answer will be before you asked the question. :-) Wikipedia has too small and narrow a sample of furries to be valid, anyway. Try asking UC Davis to include it in a followup survey. Make sure they ask the control group if they've ever viewed pornographic images of ''humans'' for a sexual reason. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::I agree with TonyFox. Furry fandom is no different than sci-fi or anime, and those articles don't have porn images even though there is plenty of adult material available in those genres. There's no reason to single out furry fandom for special treatment by including it here. I think someone's just trying to create controversy where there is none. —[[User:Ochlophobia|Ochlophobia]] 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::::::I agree with TonyFox. Furry fandom is no different than sci-fi or anime, and those articles don't have porn images even though there is plenty of adult material available in those genres. There's no reason to single out furry fandom for special treatment by including it here. I think someone's just trying to create controversy where there is none. Nobody's denying adult material exists, but the sexual aspects of furry fandom have already been covered extensively (too much, IMHO) in this article. —[[User:Ochlophobia|Ochlophobia]] 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:45, 12 November 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Furry fandom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
![]() | Furry fandom was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 11, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
|
![]() | Furry B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() Archives |
---|
POV 2
Once again, I've archived this debate, as it's gone completely off-topic. Feel free to start a new header about the subject of artwork in the article. This time, without the off-topic banter about geekiness, sexuality, and the fandom in general. Please? We can discuss improving the article through the use of appropriate images without these distractions. -- Kesh 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Stop doing this. Just mention that the discussion has gone off topic.--Nationalism 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article seems to omit mention of deviant sexual furry activities which are documented online in several places. http://mewsbox.furrynet.com/ygallery/WC_UW_Mew_Yuuda_Dash_col.jpg http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Mathias-BlackWolf/CrayBook01.jpg http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/47802/1182545086/JollySkUG.jpg I will try to put more examples of furries into the article. This article seems way too tolerant of the bestiality of furries. Violating an animal is a cruel practice.--76.165.246.9 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
|
Remove the porn. NOW.
Archived debate, as it's gone completely off-topic. Feel free to start a new header about the subject of artwork in the article. -- Kesh
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Think about the children! --24.47.71.87 or something like that, 16 Oct 2007, 6:23 PM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
|
Restructure>
( started by Gnurd 02:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) ) We need to restructure this. its getting out of hand. we should clean up the article and really expand on many things. areas that are less than 1 ¶ need to be removed and a link to their page added to the See Also area. Also, lets make sure that the FIRST thing they see ISNT a guy in a fursuit. if anybody has some good pics from MWFF or FC that arent JUST fursuits, replace them.
Just some thoughts.
Furry POV
The issue of the difference between how furries view themselves and how normal people view furries is the main reason the article has problems. Someone reading this article gets a definite pro-furry viewpoint. The social stigma of being a homosexual, a goth, or a transgendered person is not close to the social stigma of being furry, but this is not addressed. There could be a discussion of "furries in popular culture" with some mention of this to get a more mainstream viewpoint in the article.--Nationalism 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you find a reliable source that says this, then, and add it to the article. GreenReaper 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weren't there several TV shows that did episodes involving furries? And how can I find a reliable source to show that Wikipedia is biased? That's just an inherent function of Wikipedia.--Nationalism 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the ones that are already mentioned in the article? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's written like an advertisement. The reporter "learned" that furries are just trying to prevent inaccurate coverage? The fandom "contributes" millions of dollars to economy? "...most recent coverage focuses on debunking the myths and stereotypes that have been perpetuated" I mean come on. Find a non-furry to write the section.--Nationalism 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That information did not come from furries. It came from city newspapers and TV broadcasts. They are items of record in the mainstream press and not furry POV. --Coyoty 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've gone in and cleared out a lot of the weasel wording and superfluous information.--Nationalism 08:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The items you removed from the article were not "weasel words". They were the actual subjects of the referring articles. Read the articles before assuming their content. I have restored the removed items. --Coyoty 09:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The phrases were pro-furry statements that did not contribute to the overall section. You can keep reverting my edits but you'll just drive away all of the non-furry editors. This is exactly why this article remains in this sad state. Just because the article is pro-furry does not mean it needs a summary from the furry viewpoint on this particular section. If it's the very last statement that you feel should be included, then include it, I have no strong feeling either way. --Nationalism 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I give up. If you keep reverting POV then you can have your furry project to yourselves, but it will never been an encyclopedic article.--Nationalism 12:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The items you removed from the article were not "weasel words". They were the actual subjects of the referring articles. Read the articles before assuming their content. I have restored the removed items. --Coyoty 09:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's written like an advertisement. The reporter "learned" that furries are just trying to prevent inaccurate coverage? The fandom "contributes" millions of dollars to economy? "...most recent coverage focuses on debunking the myths and stereotypes that have been perpetuated" I mean come on. Find a non-furry to write the section.--Nationalism 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nationalism: Claiming fictional portrayals of furries on TV (i.e., ER, CSI, etc.) are a "reliable source" is dubious at best. There's a big difference between fiction and fact. Hope this clears things up. —Ochlophobia 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the ones that are already mentioned in the article? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weren't there several TV shows that did episodes involving furries? And how can I find a reliable source to show that Wikipedia is biased? That's just an inherent function of Wikipedia.--Nationalism 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a documentary on furries that is in progress, but it should be in the "media coverage" section. http://tv.boingboing.net/2007/11/01/american-furry.html --Nationalism 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a published documentary. It is a work in progress posted to a blog and does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a notable reference. --Coyoty 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a trailer, and has been published on the internet, obviously. The documentary has finished taping, according to its website. It contains interviews with furries and I see nothing objectionable about the furry interviews. Do you?--Nationalism 09:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about whether it does or doesn't contain anything objectionable; the trailer is self-published, therefore does not meet the reliable sources guidelines. --Rat at WikiFur 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not self published. The website did not create the work. --Nationalism 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to my limited knowledge of Wikipedia policy and the vetting process at BoingBoing I don't know if it meets WP:RS or not. My gut feeling is that it isn't a good source; a trailer for a documentary has the ultimate goal of promoting the documentary, not providing an balanced view of the subject. With the amount of good sources we have available, it don't see any reason to use questionable ones. --Rat at WikiFur 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The documentary, according to that page, has yet to be released. It's not complete. If it's actually released at some point, it may be a reasonable reliable source. Right now, it's not. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not self published. The website did not create the work. --Nationalism 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about whether it does or doesn't contain anything objectionable; the trailer is self-published, therefore does not meet the reliable sources guidelines. --Rat at WikiFur 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a trailer, and has been published on the internet, obviously. The documentary has finished taping, according to its website. It contains interviews with furries and I see nothing objectionable about the furry interviews. Do you?--Nationalism 09:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a published documentary. It is a work in progress posted to a blog and does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a notable reference. --Coyoty 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Nationalism's edits
While I believe Nationalism's reasoning is way off the mark, I have to say that the current edits he/she has made do read better (for the most part). I don't think there were any weasel words, but the majority of the changes were minor and simply clarify their sentences.
I inherently disagree that the original versions were "slanted" though, and would urge Nationalism to cut back on claiming editors are promoting a pro-furry viewpoint. We can edit this article without resorting to drama. -- Kesh 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Furry Lifestylers Section
Seems outdated. Delete?--Nationalism 13:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Outdated? How? -- Kesh 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't see how the topic of a furry lifestyler is important enough to warrant its own section. And reading the section, I barely understand what the heck it means. I think the section should be completely re-written with emphasis on why furry lifestylers are so important to the furry fandom, or be removed entirely.--Nationalism 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's here because it was merged in from an article after an AFD discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many furs have spiritual beliefs. You might expect these to be separate from fandom activities (most railway enthusiasts do not find God as the light at the end of a tunnel), but in furry fandom they are often at least somewhat integrated, such that (for example) there will be a session on furry spirituality at Midwest FurFest. It is not usually as simple as "I believe I'm really a fox spirit trapped inside a human body", but perhaps closer to "I believe I have an innate connection with the Fox, or the Wolf". There are strong links with therianthropy.
- I think perhaps spirituality is a better term than lifestyle, even though that is the name of the newsgroup, because "lifestyle" suggests a different concept. But then . . . it is not just spirituality, but also integrating "furriness" into your daily life. Something like lapism - to some people, to be a furry is to be a different kind of person. That section could certainly get the point across more clearly, but it is a hard point to get across. :-) GreenReaper 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying there are furries that think they really are animals? Or have animal spirits in them? This fetish just keeps getting weirder and weirder...--Nationalism 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- There may be a few furries who truly believe they are animals trapped in a human's body. Come to think of it, I wonder that's actually true or is just an "urban legend" of sorts within the furry community. (And as GR points out, furry is not a fetish.) --Mwalimu59 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, what the hell is a "babyfur" and what does it have to do with babies or pedophilia?--Nationalism 15:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Likely, but not all of them would believe in such a manner. As mentioned somewhere above, they would be closer to therianthropes. Babyfur refers to a baby furry character I believe. TwilightPhoenix 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's because it's not simply a fetish, and not a fetish at all for some - it is, like the article says, a whole subculture based around the concept of anthropomorphic animals. If you think the idea of furry spirituality is bad, consider the people who think they can talk to an invisible person who made the world and who will offer them eternal life. As for babyfurs, see WikiFur's article. The topic was deleted as non-verifiable on Wikipedia, which I would tend to agree with. GreenReaper 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, "babyfurs" are furry fans who are also into infantilism, which as that article points out are seldom pedophiles. I'm not sure there's any more to it other than what the parts of it would suggest (which may be part of the reason it didn't get its own article). There are subgroups in furry fandom for just about any other interest or preference you can think of - amateur radio furs, furry railfans, cowboy furs, military furs, furry bikers, and the list goes on. --Mwalimu59 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Others may stress that since characters portrayed are not human, it is not meaningfully pedophilia. Outsiders often disagree, since the activity still involves actual adults taking an interest in prepubertal persons depicted in sexual situations." Yeah you furries are pretty creepy, but at least you aren't this. Maybe it should be mentioned in the furry article since it's a significant part of furry culture.--Nationalism 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again, comes down to finding verifiable third-party references for it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babyfur suggests a lack of them. As far as I know, it is not an aspect that the media has paid much attention to, mostly because they are still on "wow, these guys have sex in animal costumes!" (heh, recipe for heat exhaustion there...), but also because there's only a small part of a small community involved. Like the other crossover communities Mwalimu mentioned, it is not particular well-understood even within furry fandom, though (like furry fandom in the wider community) it comes up more often than you'd expect thanks to its content. GreenReaper 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not only is this discussion getting off topic (again!), it's nearing the point of invoking WP:DNFT. --Mwalimu59 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're being a bit hasty there. They are still discussing the article, which is what the talk pages are for, as opposed to trolling. Additionally, DNFT is an essay and not policy, so there really isn't anything there to invoke. If things are off-topic, you should point to WP:NOT, as in Wikipedia is not a forum. And as per above, Green is right. Information for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not whether they are true or not. TwilightPhoenix 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying there are furries that think they really are animals? Or have animal spirits in them? This fetish just keeps getting weirder and weirder...--Nationalism 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't see how the topic of a furry lifestyler is important enough to warrant its own section. And reading the section, I barely understand what the heck it means. I think the section should be completely re-written with emphasis on why furry lifestylers are so important to the furry fandom, or be removed entirely.--Nationalism 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictures, again
I have just removed one of two pictures inserted into the "Sex and furry fandom" section, specifically the Max Cooncat image of an aroused male fox. The female pic remaining is a little more softcore (though sticky) and serves as a reasonable representation of yiffy art without being too explicit. Earlier discussions indicated that the male pic was too over the top as well. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- tnx for explanation. i will try to remove idem picture from ru:Йифф --Berserkerus 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- And, of course, both of those pictures appear to be up for deletion on Commons. Bah. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Porn
Are you kidding me? Why's that up there? Is it like people might not understand what you're talking about? Jesus; that's vomit inducing.24.86.144.101 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, most of the editors here who are furries think the article is fine without an adult image, and the ones who have been trying to include one in it are not furry fans. The past discussions are here in the discussion and its archives. --Mwalimu59 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I personally couldn't really care either way; the only issues I've got with this is that if we have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it, and if we don't have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems silly either way... I made a misguided comment earlier but have since removed it having overreacted and assumed my whole thing to be deleted. It's not like I spend a lot of time looking up this article, but it seems to me that it's there for shock value mostly - which isn't really the purpose of an encyclopedia, or Wikipedia, for that matter. 24.86.144.101 05:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see plenty of complaints about the inclusion of softcore porn imagery in the article by moderators and visitors, but can you point to a balance of complaints by moderators that softcore porn imagery was absent from the article beforehand? There isn't any. This article is quite possibly the most visited destination for people to learn about furry fandom. Exposing those visitors to softcore porn imagery is neither in the best interests of Wikipedia or those learning about the fandom, especially when the textual information clearly sufficed. Pornography does not add value to this article. - Rigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.103.70 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I personally concur with removal of the image. It was added largely at the behest of a handful of visitors who insisted the article was biased or sanitized when it didn't bear out their preconceived notions about furry fandom. As others have noted it does less to convey an accurate impression than to add gratuitous shock value. In fact, I think I'll go ahead and remove it. --Mwalimu59 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. Let's hope the complaints both directions trail off. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- That type of art exists. We should not pretend it does not.Geni 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No one is pretending that it doesn't exist. The article makes quite clear mention of it. However, the inclusion of particularly only that image (or a similar one) as representative of artwork in furry fandom is misleading and unbalanced reporting in the article, based on points already established in the article. --Dajagr 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is however in the Sex and furry fandom section and thus isn't claiming to be representative of the wider area of furry art.Geni 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate for the only representation of furry art to be that intended for mature audiences. However, there is no denying that pornography/erotica is a significant and popular component of furry art - though not (as some would claim) the majority. I suggest finding some good quality non-pornographic art, obtaining the appropriate licensing, and adding it to the other sections of the article, in addition to that which is here now in the section about it. Looking (logged-in) at Fur Affinity, a clean to naughty to dirty ratio of about 6:1:1 seems appropriate. In reality eight pieces of furry art seems excessive unless we are talking about have an article about furry art, so perhaps three pieces of clean art and one borderline naughty/dirty piece would be better (the current one seems representative of this level, though I wouldn't preclude something higher-quality replacing it in the future). GreenReaper 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Second this, though I would suggest distilling it further to one clean, one naughty/dirty. Yes, I realize that this is stretching the ratio quite significantly, but I don't think the page needs four images. --Scani 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen furries deny attending furry conventions, furries that deny having animal spirits, furries that deny owning a fursuit, but you furries had better not deny you enjoy this strange porn. I understand that you don't want people to have a negative image of you, but people need to be exposed to the truth about furries.--72.207.228.114 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's denying that some enjoy it - though unlike fursuit ownership, convention attendance or spiritual beliefs, I'm not aware of any surveys published by reliable sources on the topic. However, having such a picture as the sole representation of drawn furry artwork is misleading, because it implies that the majority of furry art is pornographic when it is not. That doesn't mean we should avoid such images completely - which I think would be a denial - but to say "well, we need to show the others as well". Only then will people have the whole truth. GreenReaper 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're wrong. A simple Google image search for "furry" will show that the majority of the results are of a sexual nature.--72.207.228.114 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're confusing "the most linked images" with "the majority of images". Still, even there, it falls apart - after the first couple of pages most of the results aren't even furry artwork, but pictures of random people or items. "Furry" by itself is a poor search term. "Furry art" (with the quote marks) gives about the proportion I described above before falling apart like "furry" does. Try actually looking at the uploads on a general-purpose furry art site like Fur Affinity or the VCL (historically viewed as an adult site, but even here the majority is clean). GreenReaper 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're wrong. A simple Google image search for "furry" will show that the majority of the results are of a sexual nature.--72.207.228.114 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- "People need to be exposed to the truth about furries"? People, stop throwing food. This is getting tiresome. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Poll the furries, here. If they tell the truth a large majority will admit to have viewed pornographic images of animal/human hybrid "furries" for a sexual reason.--72.207.228.114 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- "If they tell the truth"? Sounds a lot like you've decided what the answer will be before you asked the question. :-) Wikipedia has too small and narrow a sample of furries to be valid, anyway. Try asking UC Davis to include it in a followup survey. Make sure they ask the control group if they've ever viewed pornographic images of humans for a sexual reason. GreenReaper 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with TonyFox. Furry fandom is no different than sci-fi or anime, and those articles don't have porn images even though there is plenty of adult material available in those genres. There's no reason to single out furry fandom for special treatment by including it here. I think someone's just trying to create controversy where there is none. Nobody's denying adult material exists, but the sexual aspects of furry fandom have already been covered extensively (too much, IMHO) in this article. —Ochlophobia 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Poll the furries, here. If they tell the truth a large majority will admit to have viewed pornographic images of animal/human hybrid "furries" for a sexual reason.--72.207.228.114 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's denying that some enjoy it - though unlike fursuit ownership, convention attendance or spiritual beliefs, I'm not aware of any surveys published by reliable sources on the topic. However, having such a picture as the sole representation of drawn furry artwork is misleading, because it implies that the majority of furry art is pornographic when it is not. That doesn't mean we should avoid such images completely - which I think would be a denial - but to say "well, we need to show the others as well". Only then will people have the whole truth. GreenReaper 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No one is pretending that it doesn't exist. The article makes quite clear mention of it. However, the inclusion of particularly only that image (or a similar one) as representative of artwork in furry fandom is misleading and unbalanced reporting in the article, based on points already established in the article. --Dajagr 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- That type of art exists. We should not pretend it does not.Geni 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. Let's hope the complaints both directions trail off. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I personally concur with removal of the image. It was added largely at the behest of a handful of visitors who insisted the article was biased or sanitized when it didn't bear out their preconceived notions about furry fandom. As others have noted it does less to convey an accurate impression than to add gratuitous shock value. In fact, I think I'll go ahead and remove it. --Mwalimu59 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I personally couldn't really care either way; the only issues I've got with this is that if we have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it, and if we don't have a picture there, we get editors bitching about it. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)