Talk:Furry fandom

RainRat and GreenReaper have pledged rewards of $150 and $50 for the first featured article and first ten good articles within this topic area according to their rules. Please check out the Wikipedia reward board for more information on how you can help yourself!

Archives
Talk:Yiff Archive June 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 – June 2008

Anti-Furry PSA

I don't know whether this should go under media coverage or under furry criticism. http://i38.tinypic.com/2zz7s7d.jpg --72.207.228.109 (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! --Draco 2k (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The scary thing is, it appears to be real (although it's not a PSA so much as a means to advertise iG - internet Generation and their tools). There's three ads at the first link, so you can collect the whole set! I've emailed the advertisers and iG to try and figure out their actual intentions, though I fear my Brazilian Portuguese is not up to much (perhaps I can ask the organizer of Abando to translate). GreenReaper (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wha? Did you actually email them or are you joking? Seems to me that the intended meaning is just that it's a stuffed animal (like a kid might have) taking off its "clothes", which is something a kid shouldn't see. If it was a human taking off its clothes it would probably make more literal sense, but that wouldn't be as funny (or publishable). -kotra (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like a general-type ad under the sun. Though, of course, it'll be interesting if it turns out otherwise - do folk at iG actually suspect parents to know and protect their kids from furry porn?.. Heh. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a real ad that references furries so unless you guys have any objections I think it should be added because we currently don't have any furry criticism in the article right now. --72.207.228.109 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really did email them - in English and poorly-translated Portuguese. I've not yet heard anything back from the advertising agency or iG. The title of the advert is "Stuffed Animals", not "Furries"; it seems presumptive to assume that it is actually intended to be about furries without any reference to back that up. GreenReaper (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest the ad targets furry fandom specifically rather than being general-purpose. For example, it would also be rather silly to assume Sonic the Hedgehog hails from somewhere inside the fandom, wouldn't it? If you have anything to back up the assumption, please, feel free to add it to the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The ad doesn't target the fandom, it targets parents who are concerned their children might look at furry drawings or videos.--72.207.228.109 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be really surprised if the ad was supposed to be about furries, simply because they aren't mainstream enough use in advertising. It would make far more sense for them to be making a comment about "toys with their clothes off". Given that, I'd want to see a reliable source stating that the ads were specifically referring to furries. If such a source was present, of course, then it would be excellent in the article. Without it any discussion here would just drawing on interpretations of a primary source, which would constitute original research. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even that's inferring quite a bit from one picture. Can you point us to sites that refer to it, other pictures in a series it is part of, etc., that corroborate this? Looking at all three ads in the series, and without anything better to go on, I'm more inclined to interpret them to carry a message about porn on the internet rather than anything to do with furries. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources suggesting that the ad does, indeed target such audiences, please, feel free to add it to the article. Mentioning it otherwise would constitute Original Research, however. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest emailing the ad company that produced the campaign? I am the user that found this ad and posted it here. --Nationalism (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read above, I mentioned that I did. I have not (yet) got a reply. GreenReaper (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which, I'd guess, is mainly due to the creators laughing their asses off. Not to say I'm not waiting for reply any less eagerly. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to do a little more digging on the ad campaign and found a couple of references - here and here. The campaign appears to be recently launched so there hasn't been a lot of time yet for people to react to it. Near as I can determine it appears to be promoting the parental controls available from iG. Admittedly I'm curious why the ad text is in English if the target audience is in a Portuguese speaking country. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>*facepalm* Guys, it's not a furry-targeted ad, I can pretty much guarantee that. The "protect kids on the internet" hook suggests that it's targeted at parents reminding their kids that taking their clothes off and sending pictures of themselves to strangers is not a good thing to do (sadly, this seems to be a message that's missing these days). Note that each of the plush is either partly or fully out of its fur and looking bashful; they're using the plushies to represent kids. It's not "aaaah kids will find this evil furry art" or anything. (If it was, they'd have used foxes, considering their prevalence in the fandom. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Furry suits used in German Carnival

• 
  Lake of Constance Chicken
• 
  Goat
• 
  Lake of Constance Rabbit
• 
  Wine Leave

,

Southwestern Germany has a long tradition of Therianthropy during local carnival. For veganites: It includes even costumes simulating vegetable beings. I think its worth while to have a look on the widespread scientific literature in that field, since I assume some of the results apply to furrydome respectively there might be already some studies about the parallels. I had started a discussion in the German wikipedia and am willing to share some of the results if of interest here. BTW those costumes IMHO are much cooler than the typical Disney Furry... --Polentario (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Technically, such tribal costumes can very well fall under the Fursuit category, however, the current definition of Fursuit itself on the Wiki is rather shady: "Animal costumes assosiated with the furry fandom" - but what kind of "associated"?

I'm sure this would make an interesting addition to the article - but first one will need a reliable source or two about what "Fursuit" really means so we know it's even relevant. I'll try to poke a few places, but I can't promise anything. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of this fasnet (carnival) costumes and Furries share a hang for anthropomorphism and as well for disguise - which can be used to address political critisism, , sexual desires and other nice but controversial topics. All the points about crossdressers, hidden sexuality and anarchist behavior have been discussed en detail with regard about Carnival. There is even a crime series about it (during Tatort)

• I fear you 'll find much more reliable sources about fasnet habits and carnival compared what is available about furries, but be daring and have a try.
• What I personally find very intresting: Those athropomorphic fasnet costumes are NOT at all oldfashioned, most of them came up as alte as around 1900 together with Art deco but were (mostly succeesfully branded) as being medieval. I can try to provide sources for that, but its mostly german probably. --Polentario (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic animal anything before the early 1980s is not furry. The furry fandom began in the early 80s (or the late 70s, depending on who you ask), so anything before then cannot, logically speaking, be called furry. For this reason, humanoid animal gods, Aesop's fables, Peter Rabbit, and Mickey Mouse are not considered furry (at least, by anyone other than a minority of furries). Instead, they are examples of anthropomorphic animals, talking animals, and/or funny animals. Yes, there are cursory similarities between these traditional costumes and fursuits, but they come from two different contexts and are two different things. -kotra (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Furry fandom is based on an interest in anthropomorphic animal characters; it's not a historical category. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your point. I agree that furry fandom is based on an interest in anthropomorphic animal characters, but just because something is an anthropomorphic animal doesn't mean it's furry. There is a difference between the thing one is interested in and the interest itself. Otaku (of the Western variety) are interested in Japan, but Japan is not otaku itself. The Nazis loved Wagner, but Wagner was not a Nazi. So then can furry fans love The Lion King or Native American mythology or Krazy Kat; but that doesn't make those things furry. So with these traditional costumes. -kotra (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a perpetual argument, but I'll bite - furry fandom, as a coherent movement under the name "furry", did not come about until the mid-1980s. This article is concerned with that movement. People previously and in separate places liked stuff that some now associate with the term "furry" - but that's a lot of stuff, much of which would fall under the definition of carnival depictions and/or representations of belief rather than modern fandom. Because there is no clear descent from furry fandom, nor clear that it is born from the same roots, it's probably best to record such things over at anthropomorphism or in a separate article - in the same way that kemonomimi (considered a form of moe anthropomorphism) is separate. Articles on the same base concepts approached in a different way by a different culture would make a great a "See also". GreenReaper (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Furry" is an interest in anthropomorphic characters; it encompasses these characters as much as interest in watches encompasses watches - that is to say, it doesn't.

This doesn't stop said things from being more than relevant to the fandom - it's subject, to be precise - but what to call this "relevance", and what to make of it?.. You can say teapots are relevant to tea, per se. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Though concerning this particular topic (therianthropy in local southwestern German festivals), it probably has about as much relevance to the average furry as, say, Snoopy—that is, very little. It may have more relevance to German furries, but on a global scale (which this article strives to achieve), I don't think it merits mention. -kotra (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't call it particularly notable off the bat either, but it's an open wiki, and I'm certainly not an expert in the field. I figure the whole idea of this discussion is establishing the state of relevance of these "fursuits" to anything else.

I think this could be mentioned in the Fursuit article along the lines of "see also" or something, like GreenReapear said, but I can't figure out how, where or, indeed, why. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are more or less in agreement, then. I'm not sure if it has enough relevance to fursuits to merit a "See also" link, but even if it did, I don't think we have an article on it. The best I came up with was Fastnacht, which is what the festivals are called. -kotra (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I guess we'll have to leave it at that unless someone says it's more notable than that, or comes up with more specific details. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory $0.02: Anthropomorphic animal anything before 1980s is furry because furry is a synonym for anthropomorphic animal. For this reason, humanoid animal gods, Aesop's fables, Peter Rabbit, and Mickey Mouse are considered furry. They are anthropomorphic animals, which is what the whole meta-genre is based around in the first place. —Xydexx (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. The only problem is, we don't have an article on Furry - just the Furry fandom - so while it's still relevant, it's hard to tell to what extent, nevermind whether we should mention anything like this there or not. --Draco 2k (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree; "furry" means "related to the furry fandom" to me, and the fandom didn't exist before about 1982.

But even if it did mean "anthropomorphic animal", "furry" is far from the most common term for anthropomorphic animals. The average person would call Mickey Mouse a "funny animal" or "cartoon animal" ("comic animal" according to Wikipedia). And Aesop's Fables are usually described as having "talking animals" ("anthropomorphic animals" to Wikipedia). Nowhere is "furry" used to describe these things (outside of the furry fandom). While a "house" can be called a "dwelling", it usually isn't. So we should restrain ourselves from calling every anthropomorphic animal a "furry", because, well, who calls "houses" "dwellings"? Unless they have some special relationship to the furry fandom, it's silly to call them "furry".

We are getting off-topic here though (mostly my fault, sorry). -kotra (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Furry" is a neologism and a synonym for "Funny animal" - it's mentioned as such in the article. Not to mention Furry fandom itself came about because of these characters in the first place, and they were and likely still are the main subject of interest to most fans.

But, like I said, this discussion might be in vain as long as we don't have a separate article on "Furry_(character)" or something. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess with a word like "furry" there are bound to be about 5 million (according to my calculations) slightly different interpretations of it... I tend to think that "furry" means "anthropomorphic animals associated with the furry fandom", since it's only used in the context of the furry fandom, but for you it just means "anthropomorphic animals". In any case, you're right about this discussion not being useful for this article, which is just about the fandom. If you're thinking of starting "Furry (character)", I warn you that it might not survive very long as the only sourceable information it could contain would probably just be a dictionary definition, and hence be more fitting for Wiktionary. -kotra (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the word is used outside the fandom is well for whatever reason, if not that often. Article references 3,4 and 5 point ot a few examples, and I've personally heard it a bunch of times myself but uh... Well, trivia, offtopic. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the average person would call Mickey Mouse a "funny animal" as it is a niche term that tends to be limited to industry jargon and not general usage. It also tends to be used as a term to describe funny (as in LOLCATS) non-anthropomorphic animals. You'll note "furry" is in fact used commonly as a synonym to describe anthropomorphic animals in most of the media coverage furry fandom gets these days (and you've gotta admit, it's a lot easier to say "furry" than "fictional anthropomorphic animal character"). —Xydexx (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[This is sort of a meta-response to the entire discussion as a whole, rather than a response to any one individual. Don't look at it as me specifically addressing any individual above comment or discussion!]

I think actually what's going on here is that there are two different, but similar phenomena that are being described using the same word, and that that is causing confusion, because context doesn't always make clear which sense is being used, because some people only associate one meaning or the other with the term, and because there are places where the uses of the term overlap, making it harder to always see the two separate meanings.

First, furry is used to indicate creative works made by members of the furry fandom specifically for consumption within the fandom. This would include, for example, the vast majority of what shows up on sites like FurAffinity and VCL. It would also include zines like South Fur Lands, artwork at furry conventions, and even novels published by Sofawolf Press. This sense of the term can only be used to works created in around the 80s and beyond, simply because there wasn't much resembling a fandom before that.

Second, furry is also used to refer to creative works that are made for general consumption but that include elements that cause them to appeal with a significantly greater frequency or "pull," if you will, to members of furry fandom. This is a somewhat nebulous category, because exactly what causes the appeal isn't always universal (for example, not all furry fans will be interested in, for example, mascot costumes or nekomimi characters). This would include things like Disney's Robin Hood, Niven's Man-Kzin Wars, the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, Aesop's Fables, and even to some degree things like the Pokémon franchise. This usage generates a lot more controversy, because there are creators who for various reasons don't want to be associated with furry fandom as a whole. (The Reality Check comic series comes to mind here.) As you can see, this sense of the term can be applied more universally, even to works that were created well before any organized furry fandom or by creators who were unaware of the fandom's existence.

Finally, you can have works that are somewhere in between on the spectrum: for example, works created by furry fans containing some anthropomorphic-animal elements but that are nevertheless intended for a wider audience (such as mainstream sci-fi/fantasy, like with Kage's Tweaked in the Head) or works that are created by artists who are not specifically furry fans but who acknowledge that there is a significant fandom appeal to their works and even attend furry conventions to promote their works (Bill Holbrook's Kevin and Kell might be an example). It's within these shades of grey that some of the controversy is fueled.

Obviously, these German costumes do not fall under the first definition. One could fairly easily make a case for their falling under the second definition. However, the important points of focus for Wikipedia, in particular, are

• Whether this interest is notable
• Whether this interest can be verifiably documented, and
• Whether this interest is of encyclopedic interest in terms of the article.

I think we're really missing all three of these points right now—not that they don't exist, necessarily, but that we don't have any indication of them. Just because something has animal aspects doesn't mean that it automatically merits a mention in this article...but it might, if some good relevance can be established. —Dajagr (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Great points. Sounds like the last few nails in the coffin for that discussion, until better times, more reliable sources or more motivated editors. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly offtopic discussion about "Furry" definitions and false dichotomies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And, as a slight offtopic, where do you draw the first definition of "furry" from? I keep seeing people use it that way, but where does it come from? It's certainly not cited in the article, and would make for a nice addition if it were. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I think one of the problems we've run into in recent years is how people keep attempting to create a false dichotomy by claiming furry fandom is different than other works featuring anthropomorphic animals based on vague and flimsy claims about what "audience" such works are supposedly "intended" for (i.e., even though they're both anthropomorphic animals, the author "didn't intend" it to be part of furry fandom or there's some other "subtle" (read: unstated) "difference" that doesn't make a particular work "furry"). It's a load of nonsense. The only reason the claim is given credibility at all is because it's repeated a lot. —Xydexx (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Well, it's only happened in recent years because before that the word "furry" wasn't used by anyone to describe these works. Now you have a few people coming along and saying "hey, I'm a furry fan, and that's all furry stuff" and (some) others are saying, "no, that's a word you just adopted - you shouldn't be applying it to works outside the area of your fandom." To many outside furry fandom (and to some inside), the word "furry" - if they think it means anything beyond "covered in fur" - refers to a specific style of artwork/culture, perhaps within a specific timeframe. Or maybe they feel it should apply only to fully anthropomorphic (biped) creatures, or to work done by amateurs, or to pornography - in each case, because that's the context they've experienced it in. As no one person or group has the authority to define what "furry" means - except in French - we're going to keep running into such issues until a single definition becomes universally accepted, if it ever is. GreenReaper (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) To be blunt, some people don't like associations. It's like if you liked the Donkey from Winnie the Pooh, and then suddenly someone goes, "Hey! He's an emo!". And you suddenly have to make an excuse so as to not associate your childhood character with a stereotype of some whiny teenagers. Same goes for, "Hey! He's a furry!" (Exaggeration, I have no idea what emo is or whether Donkey would be one, use common sense) --Draco 2k (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC) shrug* Personally, I'm gonna stick with the commonly-accepted definition we've been using for the meta-genre for the past two decades. This whole "we can't agree on a definition" business seems too much like a cop-out and just unnecessarily complicates things. —Xydexx (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Well, basically, it is. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FurAffinity redirect

Why the hell does FurAffinity redirects into this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.205.201 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FurAffinity is the art hosting service targeted towards the furry fandom and is mentioned as such in the article.

I believe Wiki had an article on it some time ago, but it was culled for failing the article guidelines (lack of citations, unverifiable notability, something else). --Draco 2k (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Draco is correct (well, other than the "the" - it's one of many). The relevant discussion is here. See also Yerf, Furtopia, the VCL (1, 2) and Yiffstar. Perhaps rather than having an article about each website, a section could be made about them here. The issue is sourcing, but primary or less-reliable secondary sources might suffice for non-controversial claims. GreenReaper (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any post-mortem copies left of these articles? If they were deleted a bit prematurely, surely some of the relevant content could be sewn into the main article - as you said - as a subsection, or otherwise. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These could be obtained from an administrator. Personally, I suspect it would be better to write them from scratch. GreenReaper (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Article revamp

I've tried to fix the article up a bit. Most major changes are: the survey data was cut and redistributed between other sections; a few sections were moved, cut and/or merged; a dozen unsourced or weasel-worded claims were either removed or reworded. I probably left something out in the process - the article will need a check-up and a review.

Below are some of the Survey Data leftovers and a Good Article criteria reminder - please remove the hat/hab templates over this if you feel like contributing or saying anything. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvested survey data listing & Good article reminder notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surveys and the Article How do you extract data from the surveys to something actually readable without removing most of the content? Also, can you cite Internet-only surveys, or at least mention them in Further Reading section? --Draco 2k (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'll put a list of survey data available so far over here - treat it as an open notepad, maybe someone will be kind enough to help out with this mess. Sources: 1 - Data from 1997-1998 survey [1] - This data might be obsolete due to a decade gap. || Refname = FirstSurvey 2 - Data from May, 2007 survey. [2] || Refname = SecondSurvey 3 - On-going online survey. [3] - This should be a reliable source. Check the link for mode details: http://www.klisoura.com/furrypoll.php || Refname = ThirdSurvey Note: The data below is also a description the polled group. It may or may not represent the fandom as such, or represent the surveys' bias. [Fandom-specific] Most furries (~80%) do not own a fursuit. (2) Most furries (~80%) consider themselves predominantly human. About 6% do not consider themselves human at all. (3) Most furries believe that visual art, conventions, literature, and online communities are strongly important to the fandom. Fewer believe that music is as important. (3) [Demographics] The fandom is undergoing a population growth (as of 1997-98). (1) A big part of new members to the fandom comes from the high-school or college student demography. (1) A large part of participants reported their residence as East and West coasts of United States, as well as eastern coast of Canada. (1) The majority of furry fans (~40%) are either college students or participate in collegial studies. (1)(2) Politically, 40% of respondents described themselves as "Liberal" or "Very liberal", contrasting with 7% who were "Conservative," or "Very conservative". 35% were "Not political" or "Other", and 16% were "Moderate". (2) Majority of the fans are American (~80%) caucasian (~80%) males (~80%). Nearly all respondents (~90%) reported earning less than $50,000 per year. (2) [Social aspects] Fandom members practice a wide range of views beliefs, with most younger members leaning towards agnosticism. (1) Members of the furry fandom seem to share certain social norms, like openness in body language, with science fiction and fantasy fandoms. (1) Around half of furries engage in furry-related Internet friendships, chat rooms, and blogging. (2) 42% furries attended conventions, ~30% attended parties, and ~15% took part in art auctions. (2) [Perception of the fandom] ~45% said that public reaction to furry fandom was either "negative" or "extremely negative". (3) ~15% said that they were responded to more negatively than the reactions of the general public. (3) A majority hold largely positive feelings towards conventions and fursuiters. (3) [Sexuality] Furries "report a rather non-judgmental attitude" to some aspects of sexuality. (1) The fandom contains a relatively large proportion of people reporting homosexuality (~25%), bisexuality (~40%), polyamory, or other forms of alternative sexual relationship (~8% said they were uncertain). (1)(2) 2% state an interest in zoophilia, and fewer than 1% stated an interest in plushophilia. (1) Furries have "a higher tolerance for variety in sexual orientation and activity". (1) Heterosexual furries "participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity". (1) About half of the respondents were in a relationship, and 76% of those in a relationship were having a relationship with another furry. (2) The majority are largely ambivalent towards plushophiles and ambivalent-leaning-negative towards zoophiles. (3) Feel free to edit; I'll try to condense this myself a bit later on. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I removed the Survey section from the article; everything crossed out on the list above is now part of the article itself. This is going to be a bit of a mess for now - needs rewording and better organisation. One could also conjure a "Demographics" section with the data left out as marked above. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Good Article reminder The article was nominated for the GA criteria about a year ago, but did not pass the check on few points. Since then, it might have seen some substantial improvement, but a few points remain still. Namely: Weasel words - This comes mainly from unsourced or ambiguous claims. Removing those is troublesome since they still seem to be core of the article, which is also a bad thing. This seems to be the main issue with the article. Neutrality. This is usually solved by adding criticism section or mentioning any negative aspects, but we don't have any reliable sources on that for now. Thus, simply avoiding using "good" qualifiers for anything concerning the fandom would be a good start - which, actually, does seem to be the case right now. This is not a pressing issue. Archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Furry_fandom/Archive_7#GA_comments --Draco 2k (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Another problem with weasel words: those that are there can't be accurately specified without reducing the article to a dry citation of numbers. "While most of the furries do not own a fursuit, a majority of them hold positive feelings towards fursuiters and conventions they participate in" -- becomes -- "While more than 80% of furries who participated in survey X and Y do not own a fursuit, more than 80% of those individuals describe their feelings towards fursuiters and conventions they might participate in as "positive". Which is rubbish. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC) This could use a peer review or something. I've skimmed through the article and picked a few bits here and there, but there are some things I can't help with, and probably a lot more I simply don't see. Other than a few minor problems and being incomplete in some areas, seems good to me. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More furry data!

Gosh I guess I didn't realize it was such a well defined phenomenon. Maybe there could be a reference to the musician Kanye West's furry leanings in the media section..I know at least two of his album covers contain his signature bear outfit, and he wore it in a video.

Also It might worthwhile and interesting to note in the Roleplaying section about the intense popularity and backlash for and against furries I've noticed in the online metaverse SecondLife! 71.239.189.97 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting. Of course, we can't mix up something pertaining to furry interest with something directly connected to the fandom in the article (no mention of Sonic or Starfox there either).

I know of at least one documentary about Furries/Second Life, but it's not even out yet. Either way, our hands are tied behind our backs without any reliable sources - do West's or SL website(s) make any mention of the fandom or at least the said mascots? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

The claim is taken nearly word by word from the following source (http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html ; cited after the claim itself in the article):

• "It should be worth noting that heterosexual males and females within Furry Fandom also participate in this social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity as a heterosexual. This seems to fly in the face of common sense unless it is seen as non-sexual by the participants and -rather- an element of a larger societal norm."

The current article version reads:

• "Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity. [...] "

If there is any rewording of disambiguation required to remain clear on the subject, please, be bold or mention it here, but don't remove fully-cited claims. Thank you. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's favourite question

How important is the whole sexual aspect of the fandom to an average furry? Furry survey actually offers some insight on that.

• According to it, most furries (~70%) rate the importance of sex (?) in their "furry lives" from "extremely small" to "medium", while placing the same importance for other furries from "medium" to "large" (~80%), and at "extremely large" (~50%) for general public's perception of the fandom.

Is there any way to sum up all of this? I'm sure that ought to adress some points, especially since we have a whole section dedicated to sexuality of the fandom anyway. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty biased. Furries are not going to tell normal people something that reinforces a negative stereotype about them. It'd be equivalent to a girl asking a man, "how often do you fantasize about me?". The man is not likely to answer honestly. --72.207.228.109 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's from an anonymous on-line survey, link is given above. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its anonymity, the survey still doesn't compare the furries surveyed to a general population control group. So there's no way to know if the results are higher or lower than the average person. For this reason (and others, not least of which are those outlined in WP:Reliable Sources), I don't think the survey is of much use, unfortunately. We can link to it and maybe describe it briefly, but it probably can't be used to back up any claims. -kotra (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since sexuality in general is such a personal thing (for most americans at least, IMHO) such a question will contained skewed results. It would be extremely difficult to obtain any real results i bet, even if done annon. So any polling made would have very limited credibility in my mind. Sono hito (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This survey and, pretty much every other one cited in the article, is indeed far from ideal - but it's the best there is.

How do we know there was no control group present, and why is it important in a sub-group survey/sampling? What part of WP:RS does this violate, other than Self-published policy? Why do we have to compare any results with general population?

Finally, drawing conclusions from the survey would constitute Original Research, unlike citing survey results as they are. I don't think we should compare furries to general population in any aspect (unless comparison itself can be taken from an RS), but rather cite any relevant material. There's big potential for OR, RS and NPOV breach if we do otherwise even for reading comprehension's sake. --Draco 2k (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed the best survey there is (though in terms of Wikipedia's standards, the UC Davis survey might be better simply because it's from a recognized research institution), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good enough for Wikipedia.

We know there was no control group, because the author of the survey humorously says so: "I didn't give this survey to a control group. This fact alone seems to bother some people, although I was not about to poll random people on my commute. 'Hello, sir. Do you ever dress up as an animal?' Public transportation is weird enough as it is." The author does give some general US census statistics for comparison in the formal writeup (the above PDF), but I don't feel that is adequate. A control group is very important for any scientifically valid study or survey, and the author freely admits that "while this has trappings of academia, and that while we will be interpreting the data using academically-geared statistical methods, it isn't really 'science'". I won't go into why control groups are so important, Scientific control says it better than I would anyway.

Additionally, the casual "anyone can participate" nature of the study means there are no measures in place to ensure that furries are the only ones taking the survey. The author assures us that the way the survey was spread online "was and is sound", but we have not been told what his methodology to ensure that was. For example, there is no way of knowing (for us or for the survey author) if the survey was distributed around anti-furry IRC groups or a small but prolific and extreme subset of the fandom. Either could introduce bias to the results. I could go into details why one might suspect this of having occurred, but already I am getting into too much detail.

Another problem is the very online and anonymous nature of the survey, which means that anyone with sufficient technical knowledge could take the survey as many times as they wanted, undetected. This could skew the results as well.

As for WP:RS, the author of the survey and his nascent Furry Research Center are not "independent" (the author identifies as a member of the studied group, that is, furries) or "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". According to their website, the Furry Research Center has not published anything other than this survey, and a cursory Google search does not reveal that the author is an expert in his field. This does not mean that the survey and its write-up are not well done or that the author doesn't seem like a really neat guy, they are and he does (to me anyway); they just aren't at the reputation and reliability level of, say, a mainstream newspaper, scientific journal, or the APA (either one). I could have not gone into all this and just cited the self-published sources policy as you did, though.

I basically agree with your last paragraph: we certainly cannot interpret the survey results in any way. The problem, though, is we may not be able to use the source even as a primary source, even if no interpretations are made (for example, by simply stating "According to 'Furry Survey', 80% of self-identified furries described themselves as white"). According to WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." [emphasis added] Since the source is not reliable, strictly speaking, it can't be used. This may be one of the few occasions to bend the rules, but given the potential problems with the survey I raise above, I think there will need to be much more consensus. -kotra (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are very good points, unfortunately. Can we cite any data from it while explicitly mentioning the source though?

The survey itself really seems more like a sampling exercise, if I understand anything about it, in that it picks random amount of people from a certain pool, and doesn't compare the results to general population, thus not drawing any conclusion - yet it still provides potentially valid data about said pool (if every other condition is met, anyway). But it still fails the self-published policy pretty badly.

If one of us contacted the author (e-mail is right there on the site), what could we ask to remedy the situation? The exact reason for lack of control group? Clarification on survey/sampling/whatever-you-call-it status of the "Survey"? --Draco 2k (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if asking the author for clarification would help much: it would still be 1. a self-published source 2. by someone who is not a well-known expert in his field and 3. is not an independent outside observer of the studied group. I think it's a great survey/sampling and I personally would trust it to a certain extent, but Wikipedia's standards are a little higher than mine.

However, I'm not willing to say for sure that we can't use the source if it's described in a very particular way. For example: "According to an online survey conducted by members of the fandom, 80% of self-identified furries described themselves as white." If said in such a way, I think it might be ok. But since using it at all isn't following the exact letter of Wikipedia policy (though maybe the spirit?), I would be much more comfortable if we got the opinions of other editors. -kotra (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like calling WP:IAR on this - the survey might not be totally reliable, unfortunately, but I'm sure it'd make a great addition to the article. If only this phenomenon was a bit more researched...

Furthermore, if you mention so much additional data about the survey every other sentence (if you can use the survey at all, that is), you'll put the reader to sleep - if you sum it up in few words, it'll be rather deceiving. And if you remove any data coming from slightly-non-reliable sources from the article, all that remains would be one or two paragraphs, which is also a bad thing.

I guess the best-case scenario here would be finding some other independent "Furry survey", which mirrors the findings of this one at least to a degree. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we use the survey in more than one place, it could be introduced briefly, like: "In 2008, an anonymous online survey was conducted by members of the fandom, known as "Furry Survey". The survey, designed to represent an average cross-section of the fandom, surveyed 5000 individuals that identified as furry. According to "Furry Survey", 80% of self-identified furries described themselves as white." Then, if the survey is used again, it could just say "According to "Furry Survey", 50% of self-identified furries felt the public perceived furries negatively." No further explanation of Furry Survey would be needed in subsequent citations. -kotra (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. The results of this "Survey" currently mesh with those of UC Davis survey to an extent - like most respondents (~80%) being American caucasian males. Does this add anything to the matter? --Draco 2k (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point: though the reliability of this source is weak, it could be used in addition to a stronger source (by Wikipedia standards) like the UC Davis survey. So, "80% of self-identified furries described themselves as white" could be cited with the UC Davis survey and Furry Survey (but maybe not Furry Survey by itself). -kotra (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I fired off an e-mail to the author asking whether his survey or any relevant works have been published by a third-party source, as required by the self-published policy. I'll post the reply here if/when it arrives. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reply arrived just now, presented below (archived for anti-clutter purposes).

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It was been written up elsewhere but not published elsewhere. There has been some discussion about submitting it for such, but given that everyone who worked on it has a full-time job to occupy them, it’s not something we’ve pursued avidly. To be honest, there’s more or less consensus that it wouldn’t do much beyond adding some padding to protect against the “who the hell are you?” ad hominem but there’s been so little of that that we’re kind of agreed it’s a waste of our time. This is of course a problem that plagues most similar endeavours. Davis’s gig had the advantage of having a real-world institution backing it, but for the rest of us it didn’t really go beyond a LiveJournal post. Rust’s frankly much more credible “Sociology of Furry Fandom” piece is also basically in this boat. Niche topics wind up in niche distribution channels. So I suppose I don’t exactly know what you mean by “previous work in the field”. Demographic research? Per my employer I’m NDAed on all my previous work in that area. Serious study on the furry fandom? No, but, there isn’t a whole lot of that. I’m sorry, as I suspect I’m not being all that helpful. My sense of things is this: 1. Personally, I think the Survey, and Rust’s work, and the Davis guys’ stuff, is credible and gives information that is 1) accurate, and more importantly 2) useful to people trying to understand the fandom. 2. But none of it would pass muster in a peer review. It’s all good for a general understanding, but I wouldn’t want to try to launch a rocket from the numbers. 3. I would imagine Wikipedia’s goal is to present as much of that accuracy and usefulness as possible. I can certainly understand the sentiment behind wanting to err on the side of caution, although I can also see the potential dilemma of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. 4. If it were up to me, I’d say “cripes, these guys are never gonna win a Nobel, but it’s the best we’ve got” (true, alas, on both counts, I contend). 5. But you’ve got a reputation and standards to uphold, too. I would say, since I work in kind of a semantic-ish, weasel-y business, that I wouldn’t want to sneak it in. The numbers are real or they’re not. To my knowledge, it’s (by far) the largest survey of its kind on the furry fandom, ever. Period. If it doesn’t stand on its merits, including that one, I’d just toss it. (honestly: I trust the numbers up and down, but it ain’t worth duelling pistols at dawn over) Oh and two further points, if they’re germane (I imagine you can kind of redact this if not): The notion of control groups has come up before. As with previous surveys, though, the point of the document is not to compare members of the fandom with non-members, but to present the fandom in a vacuum, as-is (which is why there is little comparative data in the writeup). Control groups are absolutely necessary if you’re doing hypothesis testing, or something like that. There’s less of that in surveys (I mean, Gallup says “45% of likely voters would vote for Obama” or whatever instead of “likely voters favour Obama 5% more than a control group” because that sounds silly and the first statement is the relevant one. So it is here) which does kind of make me wonder where it comes from. But! Chacun a son goute, as the French say. Certain people—which is to say, most people aren’t—are inordinately paranoid about a secret cadre of individuals who is out there to screw with surveys. Alas and alack! Where is our faith in our fellow men? Anyway, I’m not naïve. I wrote the code, I read over every blessit answer. Even excluding the question of why anyone would do it in the first place, I have my reasons for being pretty sure that there isn’t a whole lot broke with the user base. Anyway, I hope this was of at least a little help. If I’ve failed to answer the questions, or the right ones, feel free to write back, drop me a line on AIM, call, what have you. I’ll try to be available. Have a great day!

Again, the survey may have been mentioned somewhere, but still does not necessarily qualify for RS criteria. It's not published by or linked to any famous source in the field like Rust's or UC Davis survey, but follows exact same guidelines and scientific rigour and, indeed, mirrors their findings in some areas.

The author says that control groups are only important in hypothesis testing, which is, to say, comparing a group of people to an outsider group - which the survey does not attempt - rather, it concerns self-perceptions and opinions of a select sub-group.

Basically, it's a seemingly okay survey, in line with the others two (in fact, it's way better in bias-by-disclosure department and sheer participant pool size), with only other difference being that it's not backed by an authority of any established institution (which was said time and time again, ahem). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If I could make a brief correction: I don't think control groups are only important in hypothesis testing. I said that they're critical there, for instance, but they aren't always critical elsewhere. Like, for all that it comes up, I'm not sure exactly what we were supposed to do with a control group. If the purpose had been to compare furries against non-furries, that would be one thing--but it's not. I mean. Yes, we could have asked non-furries, but what does that get us? Finding out that furries are more likely to go to furry conventions than non-furries? That they have a greater opinion on the importance of graphic art to the fandom? Again, it'd be great--if the purpose had been, you know, psychographic segmentation or "how furries are different than the rest of us". But it's not. It's summarising the furry fandom, not comparing it to some nebulous control.

So it's kind of like, yeah, we have not been referenced as much as Rust and Davis, but a lot of that is inertia and time: it hasn't been out there as long. There's a dearth of credible numeric information about the fandom out there; people who are looking to write it up have to take stuff as it comes, alas--for ten years, Rust's admittedly-wonderful essay was the only thing out there. That there isn't more kind of sucks but at the moment we have to live with it. Anyhow though I'll agree that while it isn't what we might wish for, it certainly makes sense for one to err on the side of caution. I just wanted to make a correction or two to the above statement 67.188.166.86 (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

I personally, too, don't see the significance of a control group when addressing a very specific population pool about matters specific to it and it only or when conducting an opinion polling, but I'm far from being an expert in the field. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that for this type of survey, the "control group" would be general population. Insofar as the demographics don't match the general population, it might make sense for some parts of the survey to have this "control group" demographically weighted to match the survey population. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics can be fandom-specific just like every other detail. I.e. It's hard to tell whether demographics are responsible for any data shifts, or whether they're simply specific to the fandom.

I believe this has to be a common issue with polling any sort of sub-group, a minority or subculture. I'm also sure that it is customary to make adjustments to end results according to probability theory while taking this phenomenon into account. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize now that the survey's author is essentially correct, the fandom-specific questions would be silly and pointless to ask a control group. The not-fandom-specific questions (race, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc), however, would certainly be useful to ask a control group. There was some comparison given with US Census figures in the writeup, but since the US Census was performed in a completely different way than this online survey, I would question how useful the US Census is as a control. Anyway, I understand that the purpose of this survey is to give an idea of the fandom in a vacuum, which renders a control group irrelevant. In a vacuum, the survey is certainly still useful for those within the fandom who want to see how they compare to the fandom as a whole. However, Wikipedia is looking at the fandom from the perspective of an outside observer. For those statistics that aren't restrained to the fandom (race, gender, etc), we need some sort of control, otherwise the numbers are meaningless. We could say 80% of furries are white, but is that percentage low or high in their society? We don't know without a control, and it's not the role of Wikipedia to synthesize a control, because we're not qualified.

In any case, that isn't the major issue: reliable sources. The survey author's well-written response (thanks for doing the legwork, Draco) doesn't allay my discomfort in that area, unfortunately. The main problems, as per WP:RS, remain: 1. self-published source from an individual who is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and 2. not independent - the author of the survey self-identifies as furry, the group studied in the survey. I am not claiming that I personally wouldn't trust the author or the study, or that I don't think the results are (mostly) credible. However, Wikipedia's policy is pretty explicitly against this sort of thing, so I'm not quite ready to invoke WP:IAR without some more consensus. To that end, I've written a summary of the situation below (feel free to edit it if it doesn't seem quite right) and posted a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry. If that doesn't get any responses, I'll try WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -kotra (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a reason to draw a control group when examining a distinct population pool. What would that achieve? The demographics are still examined as something specific to the fandom in it - which they very well might be.

And, more importantly, yes, the WP:RS issue is still rather jarring. One also has to keep in mind that any consensus reached here would not, in fact, be of value to an end-user unless we find a way to *make* the source comply with the guidelines. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Include Furry Survey?

Background: Furry Survey (website, formal write-up of results) is the most extensive (about 5000 respondents) and recent (2008) of the three notable surveys of the Furry Fandom, the other two being: The Sociology of the Furry Fandom (David J. Rust, based on data from 1997-98) and Furry Survey Results (UC Davis, 2007). The survey as a whole seems basically credible (to me and Draco 2k, anyway), and this article could certainly use any references it can get.

However, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. In particular, it is:

1. Self-published by an individual who is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and

2. Not independent - the author of the survey self-identifies as furry, the group studied in the survey.

Question: can/should we invoke WP:IAR and use this particular source anyway? All comments welcome. -kotra (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly there is some sort of phrase we could precede this with to outline the fact that it doesn't completely comply with WP:RS policy, but might be of interest? Something like, "...from 'Furry survey', an on-line survey conducted by members of the fandom"?

Another problem is... The survey is already cited in the article. Though only concerning fandom-specific issues that are seemingly unlikely to be contested, like perceived importance of visual art to the fandom (Inspiration section). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction/change

I can't figure out how to edit the topic page, so am adding this here so someone who *can* figure out how to edit it can make the change. (Also, if someone could let me in on the secret, I'd appreciate it.)

There is a bad link for the hypertext at "MUCK" in the next to last sentence in the History section. Should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUCK instead of " . . . MUD" (at the end). D.A.Timm (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why it links to MUD instead of MUCK (or TinyMUCK, which is what MUCK redirects to), but you're welcome to change it. Just click the "edit this page" button at the top of the article page (or there should be an "edit" link at the top of the History section). -kotra (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're a new user, the article is currently under semi-protection due to vandalism. You'll be able to edit things like this after four days and ten edits.

I've fixed the link to direct to MUCK for the time being, feel free to change it. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Furry portal

For those of you not watching WikiProject Furry: the furry portal is now up and running with selections from some of our best articles. To ensure the high quality of portal material, please raise work to at least B-class before adding it. The number of articles available to each section can be adjusted by editing the templates in the portal page. GreenReaper (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's really neat. Good job there! --Draco 2k (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Furry fandom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I put this article On Hold since a lot of work is required during the next time to meet the Good article criteria, especially in the fields of "MoS compliance" and "References to sources". I was not sure where to place some issues in this template. If my main concerns are met, I will have a second look at the article to perhaps find some less noticeable problems. So please do not take the green plusses for set in stone. However, the quality of the article is decent in its current state and it can surely be improved to meet all criteria.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   % "Fictional work celebrated" inapprobriate wording

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   % There are way too many very short paragraphs with only one, two or three sentences.
    % The lead does not provide a comprehensive overview over the main aspects of the article and thus violates WP:LEAD. Short summaries of other important information regarding the furry fandom in the various chapters of the article should be added.
    % "live shows such as Rapid T. Rabbit and Friends and" external link in the prose
    % "For example, Further Confusion has raised more than $62,000 (USD) for various charitable beneficiaries throughout its nine-year history,[38] and Anthrocon has donated more than $66,000 (USD) to animal-related charities since 1997.[39] In September 2004, Mephit Furmeet raised more than $15,000 for an organization known as Tiger Haven.[40]" redundant information
    % The use of italic in titles like Second Life and and Everquest II is inconsistent.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   % The following links in the references do not work: http://ranea.org/falf/articles/fanzines.html [14], http://vcl.com/ [19], http://kdka.com/local/local_story_167193226.html [36], http://www.arclight.net/~yarf/YARF_Chronology.html [8] and http://www.thecornernews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=AUC/MGArticle/AUC_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836454751 [55].
    % There is a big number of links to external websites lacking at least a publisher and a retrieval date (if available, more information like author, date of creation, etc. would be even better of course).
    % It should be always clear, if a source (like [4] Dagna, Justin (2005). Fera Vita: Pax Draconis. Technicraft.) is a book, a scientific paper or an article.
    % There are two [citation needed] in the article.
    % "The fandom contains a relatively large portion of people reporting homosexuality, bisexuality or other forms of alternative sexual relationships." There should be percent numbers to give more precise information.
    % "Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity." This needs a reference directly after the sentence.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   % The chapter about the history of the furry fandom does not cover more recent events, which is particularly interesting since the fandom has grown so much in recent years.
    % There is no information about the worldwide situation of the furry fandom. I think that there are some interesting differences in the history and the social structure of the furry fandom in Europe.
    % The following information does not belong in the chapter about "Art and literature": Although mammals are most commonly depicted, anthropomorphized reptiles, birds or aquatic animals may also be known as furries (or "scalies",[16] "avians",[17] or "aquatics" respectively).
    % There should be some information about the communities on art archives and personal blogs which are an important aspect of the fandom.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   "The Milwaukee Brewers had a run-in" This anecdote is really not that important that a whole paragraph should be used for it. One sentence might be even enough. Why is Jim Powell's opinion relevant at all?
   I pass this because this issue can be easily fixed.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The chapter "Media coverage" looks like it has been written by a furry fan who wanted to defend the fandom against accusations in the media trying the hardest to meet WP:NPOV by carefully selecting his sources.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good luck with improving this article!

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GA - Adjustment per review

First off, thank you for your efforts, Novil Ariandis. Further comments on your review would be appreciated.

Below will be the possible improvements or questions regarding the article improvement as outlined by GA review. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Non-vital: wording in the lead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Fictional work celebrated" - inappropriate wording. What do fans do with their subject of liking anyway? GR: Well, according to xkcd, it's a fetish. ;-) But perhaps "appreciated"? Heh, yeah. "appreciated" sounds a bit too ambiguous though.. I really can't find anything concerning what the heck do fans do with their interests. Best description we have is cited in the lead, "devotion to". --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• There are way too many very short paragraphs with only one, two or three sentences.

How can we avoid this without meshing together vastly different subject data in one paragraph?

GR: Rather than doing that, expand each paragraph with relevant related information. The article can always get bigger. It will have to grow eventually, might as well get closer to "comprehensive" now.

Well, that's the problem - we only have sources on so much things. Maybe I'm just not too good at finding them though. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: Sorry, but there does no acceptable excuse exist to not find a way to connect them better to create a better reading flow. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently, small paragraphs are used to solve this problem - there's just too much data of vastly different quality in one place. Ideally, this is solved by extending the article like GreenReaper suggested.

Anyone have ideas about what to do with this? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• The lead does not provide a comprehensive overview over the main aspects of the article and thus violates WP:LEAD.

Feedback needed: Do we need to present all six different aspects in the lead?

No (see below) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GR: This is one area we can perhaps mishmash different areas in one paragraph, but if done it needs to be done so that the transition is reasonable. I've had practice at that; if people want to write it as big as they deem necessary to get everything in, I can trim it down. ;-)

---

• Short summaries of other important information regarding the furry fandom in the various chapters of the article should be added.

Feedback needed: What important information?

Please have a look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Provide_an_accessible_overview. The lead should contain the most important aspects of the main body of the article. Information like "In the past, the media has often focused on the sexual component of the furry fandom. After claims that these portrayals are misconceptions by furry fans, a more balanced coverage has recently been established." I just came up with this and it is probably not a very good summary of the "Media" chapter (nor "good" prose), but it should indicate what sort of information the lead should contain. Writing a short lead which covers all important parts of the article is VERY difficult! However, nobody expects wonders in a "Good article". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: replaced link with internal one and italised titles.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"live shows such as Rapid T. Rabbit and Friends and" external link in the prose. Propose link removal. Converted external link to web reference. Italised a few titles while at it. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC) GR: Why not replace with internal link? If we have one, please do. A red link doesn't seem appropriate. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) We do. Replaced. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: removed trivia; reworded and done other minor edits.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"For example, Further Confusion has raised more than $62,000 (USD) for various charitable beneficiaries throughout its nine-year history,[38] and Anthrocon has donated more than $66,000 (USD) to animal-related charities since 1997.[39] In September 2004, Mephit Furmeet raised more than $15,000 for an organization known as Tiger Haven.[40]" redundant information. Feedback needed: How is this redundant? GR: We can perhaps give an (updated) yearly summary figure for 2007. That year is definitely over $60,000, while if we want to mention FC/AAE (the largest donor) it is now at a cumulative total of over $100,000. Other than that, throw it all in footnotes? More can perhaps be justified if the article as a whole is larger, but most information about convention fundraising belongs in furry convention. Maybe just move the trivia to furry convention altogether? Can we do that? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) That would work too, though I suspect it is already covered. Might need updating though. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC) This article seems to go into lots of detail about this - looks like Furry convention has this covered a lot better. I'm removing most of the trivia and replacing it with the other article's summary. Removed part below. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Such conventions feature auctions or fund-raising events, with the proceeds often donated to an animal-related charity. For example, Further Confusion has raised more than $62,000 (USD) for various charitable beneficiaries throughout its nine-year history, and Anthrocon has donated more than $66,000 (USD) to animal-related charities since 1997. In September 2004, Mephit Furmeet raised more than $15,000 for an organization known as Tiger Haven.

Adjusted: moved trivia to Furry convention.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deleted excerpt above could be incorporated into the Furry convention article. This article could also make use of some stuff from it. I'm incredibly tempted to round down the "over 9,900" attendees to the fourth digit. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: revised use of italics throughout the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The use of italic in titles like Second Life and and Everquest II is inconsistent. Feedback needed: "Inconsistent" in what sense? GR: In that one uses italics and one does not. SL and Furcadia both use italics in the their titles, and video game has italics throughout. I'd feel more comfortable with them used throughout, like we'd do for Watership Down or any other title of a work. I've italised a bunch of titles in the section. Could someone please check if I've done correctly? Also, rest of the article could use the same treatment. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Revised the use of italics throughout the article - hopefully it's the right way to do this. Reworded Media section a bit while at it. Also removed seemingly redundant trivia - removed text below. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Anthrocon brings an estimated $3 million to the Pittsburgh economy, and plans to return to the city every year "for the foreseeable future".

---

Adjusted: added archive.org mirrors to references as per citation templates; removed one reference due to unavailability.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following links in the references do not work: http://ranea.org/falf/articles/fanzines.html [14], http://vcl.com/ [19], http://kdka.com/local/local_story_167193226.html [36], http://www.arclight.net/~yarf/YARF_Chronology.html[8] and http://www.thecornernews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=AUC/MGArticle/AUC_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836454751 [55]. Feedback needed: Certain websites cited are no longer available, but are still verifiable through archive.org. GR: Then put the archive links in? VCL is at http://us.vclart.net/vcl/ How do you do that?--Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Go to archive.org, look up site, open site, check that it's working, copy from the URL bar. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC) That technically won't be a link to the original source though. Maybe add the archive.org mirror after the initial reference? If yes then, how do you do that with templates? --Draco 2k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC) You can use archivelink and archivedate parameters to fix this, it will replace the original URL and note that it has been archived as of the date specified. GreenReaper (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Hopefully, I'll get on with this later today. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what to do with this. Barring any excuses I could come up with (screen resolution, plain-text mess, citation templates, etc.), is there a syntax highlighter or WYSIWYG editor for this sort of task? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Looks like some sites are still on-line. Thanks, Dajagr! Feedback: Have a look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates and for example Template:Cite web, which includes options for archive urls. Using citation templates is always a good idea, because you never have to bother about correct formatting again and they offer a good overview of all meta-information which could be included. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Great, thank you. I'll adjust the remaining links. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC) All links adjusted or appended with archive.org mirror as per template. Removed one reference due to unavailability. Removed reference below. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Kelly, Tim (May 31, 2006). "Get Furry". The Corner News. Retrieved 2007-02-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

---

• There is a big number of links to external websites lacking at least a publisher and a retrieval date (if available, more information like author, date of creation, etc. would be even better of course).

Easy adjustment.

I have no idea what to do with this, or the one below. Barring any excuses I could come up with (screen resolution, plain-text mess, citation templates, etc.), is there a syntax highlighter or WYSIWYG editor for this sort of task? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• It should be always clear, if a source (like [4] Dagna, Justin (2005). Fera Vita: Pax Draconis. Technicraft.) is a book, a scientific paper or an article.

Easy adjustment.

---

Non-vital: two unsourced statements.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are two [citation needed] in the article. Of little importance.

---

Adjusted: "19-25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37-48% report bisexuality and 3-8% other forms of alternative sexual relationships."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The fandom contains a relatively large portion of people reporting homosexuality, bisexuality or other forms of alternative sexual relationships." There should be percent numbers to give more precise information. Easy adjustment. Adjusted. Is such detailed listing really required? --Draco 2k (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: never round down statistics.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Feedback: Such numbers are very interesting. Words like "many" should often be avoided if good percent numbers are available. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Roger. Can we round down numbers to fives or decades? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC) No, never do something like this. We take the numbers given in the sources and do not mess with them. (Except for rounding something like 34,5634290923% to 34,6% for the reader's convenience.) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Clarification: If you have a study which says "69% of x", then you can of course write "in the study xyz, more than two thirds of x...". But you should not change the numbers given and say "66% of x". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks again. I'll see if it can be implemented in the article as is. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: duplicated reference provided after to follow the respective sentence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity." This needs a reference directly after the sentence. There are two references used to back up two sentences. Should be easy to verify and adjust. Duplicated the reference provided shortly thereafter to follow suit. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted: removed trivia as per WP:NOTABILITY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GR: "May" is a little unclear - is there any quantitative measure in the refs? Furs may do a lot of things . . . I don't know how to put it better. Exact quote below. It should be worth noting that heterosexual males and females within Furry Fandom also participate in this social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity as a heterosexual. This seems to fly in the face of common sense unless it is seen as non-sexual by the participants and -rather- an element of a larger societal norm. Err... Whoops. "This social body language" actually refers to 'skritching' in the original source. This doesn't seem exactly notable, or even properly identified by the source used... Remove it? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Feedback: It my be borderline notable, but at least the sentence has to be rewritten to reflect the limited scope of the claim made in the source. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I removed the claim. It was miscited, and original phenomenon is hardly notable if at all. It could be expanded on later on if we get more references on it. Removed text below. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity.

---

• The chapter about the history of the furry fandom does not cover more recent events, which is particularly interesting since the fandom has grown so much in recent years.

Google or Wikifur should help out with this.

GR: Agreed; this is really just a matter of updating the details, I'm not sure there's been that many major changes.

Google and Wikifur did not help out with this. And no sources mean no coverage. Is it really needed? Could someone do a double-take on this? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: I think that it is quite important at least to mention stuff like conventions now being visited by thousands of people instead of several dozen. The source(s) do(es) not have to specifically deal with the "history of the furry fandom", just contain information related to it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This might help a bit. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• There is no information about the worldwide situation of the furry fandom. I think that there are some interesting differences in the history and the social structure of the furry fandom in Europe.

Feedback needed: Sources on this could be impossible to acquire. The media coverage of the furry fandom currently seems to be too scarce to provide such details.

GR: We could ask the European furs to contribute but there's an issue of original research there. See WikiFur:Timeline of media coverage which includes some foreign media? There certainly are differences.

Here's a fair bit of media coverage from the recent Eurofurence. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Of course, we can't establish the differences as per WP:OR, and there's just not enough material either way. This sounds like it'd do nicely in Furry convention though. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: I know that this is tricky and it is not a must. I will try to write two or three sentences about the situation in Germany, at least. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: removed claim as per WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following information does not belong in the chapter about "Art and literature": Although mammals are most commonly depicted, anthropomorphized reptiles, birds or aquatic animals may also be known as furries (or "scalies",[16] "avians",[17] or "aquatics" respectively). Feedback needed: Why doesn't it belong there? Double checked, this appears to be original research. The original claim and "aquatics" are not referenced, the "scalie" does not follow from citation given, and "avians" does not appear to be notable enough to guarantee mention. I'm removing this paragraph. The removed material reads: Although mammals are most commonly depicted, anthropomorphized reptiles, birds or aquatic animals may also be known as furries (or "scalies", "avians", or "aquatics" respectively).

GR: It also appeared vague because "may also be known" applies to people too - mixing the concept of the identity of furs with the artistic depiction of them.

We really have remarkably little sources on people's fursonas to begin with. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: It does not belong into the chapter about art, because it is, mainly, relevant as a form of identification. That fursonas are not just avatars like those of P&P-players should really be made more clear in the article. It is a very important part of the fandom. This information could be added in the "Roleplaying" chapter. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we don't have any reliable sources to claim that. Fact is, "fursona" doesn't really have a clear meaning even inside the fandom. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there are now quite some articles in local newspapers and other media coverage, I find it hard to believe that there are no sources available for the claim that furries often identify strongly with their avatar. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This something noone will be able to prove off the bat. The only thing I can suggest is trying Googling this yourself, but, as a reviewer, you are not expected to, or should perform any contributions to the article. Besides, it'd be impolite, so there's just my word to it.

I've been unsuccessful in this task so far, as seemingly were other editors that ever contributed to this article. In fact, I haven't even been able to find a concrete definition of the term even among the first-party sources.

Best I can propose is inserting this as an OR and adding a [citation needed] template afterwards, since GA qualifications allow for one or two of these in the article. Failing that, no sources mean no mention, and no relevance. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

About recent edit: does the article cited really reference definition of "fursona"?.. If so, thanks a bunch, and good job.

If not, however, it'll have to go as per WP:OR. That, and current revision does not logically follow since there's no associative definition of "fursona" given previously (and on-line journals are not reliable sources when it comes to statistical claims, universal claims, or, indeed, definitions of words). --Draco 2k (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• There should be some information about the communities on art archives and personal blogs which are an important aspect of the fandom.

Feedback needed: Reliable second- of third-party sources on this seem to be very hard to acquire. Can we cite first-party ones here?

GR: Right. We've been dinged for bad sources before. Art archives have historically refused media comment; there's been the occasional interview, but not on very reliable websites. If primary sources are acceptable (the sort that would not be acceptable for establishing the notability of a separate article) then we can do this well. Other than that the closest we have as a reference are things like WikiFur, blog posts, or websites of questionable notability.

Feedback: I think that this topic is so important to the understanding of the furry fandom, that first-party sources are okay if no halfway decent secondary sources can be found. Possible, not too obscure, sources are Alexa stats for art archives (to show how big they are), interviews with important members of the furry fandom (like the main staff of conventions) or articles by such furries in anthro magazines. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't good. VCL and Furaffinity don't actually seem to have a centralised reporting system - so the only "news" there is about them comes from Wikifur, and DeviantArt uses administrator's personal blogs as main sources for announcements on things, if at all. Same for any remotely published interviews, though I haven't found any remotely notable ones, personally.

Alexa does monitor FA and VCL though, here and here. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjusted: replaced with "Milwaukee Brewers broadcaster Jim Powell was sharing a hotel with Anthrocon 2007 attendees a day before the convention and reported a negative opinion of the furries."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Milwaukee Brewers had a run-in" This anecdote is really not that important that a whole paragraph should be used for it. One sentence might be even enough. Why is Jim Powell's opinion relevant at all? I pass this because this issue can be easily fixed. Proposing removal. Condensed to one sentence and merged with the previous paragraph. Removed Jim Powell's photography habits. Hope this is acceptable wording. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC) GR: Seems OK. It was big at the time but in retrospect it's not.

---

Non-vital: POV in Media section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The chapter "Media coverage" looks like it has been written by a furry fan who wanted to defend the fandom against accusations in the media trying the hardest to meet WP:NPOV by carefully selecting his sources. Feedback needed: We won't know what to fix if it's not named directly. Clarify? GR: I recommend removing the furry survey bit at the end, or integrating it into the main body of that section. It doesn't flow well by itself, and would works better as an introduction to the section. Other than that, what Draco said, but responding more generally on the topic of media coverage . . . The bulk of news coverage over the last year or two has trended positive-to-neutral. It was (at best) negative-to-neutral in the past. I believe he original purpose of that section was to show that. The question here is, can we be trusted when we provide sources that represent this - and if not, who's going to tell the story? (Part of the problem is we don't tend to get reliable third-party critiques of the flaws in news coverage though it's happened on occasion.) We're not picky in listing all media coverage at the media timeline above, but this includes some from sources "X" - the ones who make money selling magazines with lurid front-page headlines. These are considered questionable by editors, but are also not refuted by any source Wikipedia would consider reliable. Would you put X on the same level as, say, a major local broadsheet reporting on a specific convention, which actually appears to have done its research? The section could use a rewrite - but I don't think we should move bits around in order to give a certain impression, nor to present an impression followed by sourcing, rather than providing sources themselves. From readability standpoint, what should go first here?.. Do we have any other GA articles that deal with media coverage? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Well, I was more trying to figure out a way to avoid having that statement by itself. The survey statement is sourced, we might just be presenting it first. In the furry realm, furry convention and fursuit are probably the closest GAs, but there's only a bit of analysis in the former (media coverage is probably the weakest area) and an even smaller mention in fursuit. It is integrated into the rest of the article in fursuit, which might be a better route to follow than preserving a specific media section. GreenReaper (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC) From what I can see of Furry convention and Fursuit, their media-related sections/paragraphs are pretty much the same. I.e. a mess. They also seem to present negative responses in line with positive ones, just like this article. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Feedback: The chapter is obviously written to defend the furry fandom against the accusations made by very dubious parties like MTV. So it seems like no real critique is justified, which does not seem right since there are obviously some very controversial issues going on in the furry fandom. The sentence "In October 2007, a Hartford Advocate reporter attended FurFright 2007 undercover because of media restrictions. She learned that the restrictions were intended to prevent misinformation, and reported that the scandalous behavior she had expected was not evident.[62]" should be condensed to "In October 2007, a Hartford Advocate reporter came to the same conclusion after attending FurFright 2007 undercover because of media restrictions." and placed after the bit about the reporter (publication should be added!) attending Anthrocon. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Obviously it's not obvious. If it looks like it, maybe you could give a few pointers as to why it does? I'm not sure why should we condense the two different anecdotes together here either - they seem to deal with different matters, and come up with only vaguely same response. I understand this is not an urgent matter, but an advice is always welcome. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Althoug some improvements have been made in the first days after my initial assessment (definitely a good thing), the article does not meet the Good article criteria at the moment. Except for ongoing content issues (Is the article broad enough? Are the sources reliable?), the two most obvious current problems are the lead (see above) and the references which lack necessary meta-information. If no substantial improvements are made in these two regards, I will fail the nomination in a few days. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition

In their 2007 survey, Gerbasi et al identified four classifications of furries based on two dimensions: their self-perception and their species-identification. The first dimension concerns the degree in which they identified as human, with an "undistorted" viewpoint being one in which the individuals see themselves as "100% human", while those who do not are viewed as "distorted". Species-identification refers to the degree in which they desire to be human, with "unattained" being used to refer to those who desire to be "0% human". Using this classification scheme, they found that the largest group (at 38%) belonged to the "undistorted attained" category, and as such viewed themselves as 100% human and did not desire to become 0% human. However, they found that the second largest category was that of "distorted unattained", with 25% of those surveyed viewing themselves as less than 100% human and desiring to be fully non-human. (The other two categories – "distorted attained" and "undistorted unattained" – made up 22% and 15% of those surveyed respectively). These figures can be viewed in light of the findings of the larger Furry Survey, according to which a majority of furries consider themselves to be predominantly human, while about 6% do not consider themselves human at all.

It's an interesting and possibly important bit, but I think it needs to be even remotely comprehendable before being inserted into the article. Additionally, we should not give weight to surveys based on any factors other reliability, but that's a minor point.

What does "100% human" mean? What is "0% human"? What is the "desire to be human"? These things really need a clear definition, otherwise we'll just be confusing the reader (including myself) and, technically, reporting gibberish. In light of this, this also looks like a terrible question to ask in a survey to begin with. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added it because of the reference to the Furry Survey findings that a percentage of furries do not consider themselves to be human. Given that, I should be able to improve the wording: I've summarised a rather nasty part of a difficult paper, so I'm not surprised that it isn't right yet. The aim of the authors was to examine how furries identified themselves - or, more particularly, how they related their furry persona to their actual identities. - Bilby (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty impressive feat there. And, yes, almost forgot we have another weasel here... Maybe we could use a similar language ("majority of x consider themselves predominantly y")for this survey paper? It seems to state nearly the same, besides also adding a "would you want to" plane.

Is there any bit in the survey which states what "fursona" is? We could use a proper definition of that, too. There's also some similar data on sexual tendencies of furries from Furry Survey somewhere above, which also turned out tricky to summarise. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"According to what-you-call it, 78% of all furries share a desire to become ("Inhuman?" But "human" is not a quantitive or qualitive measure), while 53% consider themselves to be fully-human (and again)."

This is terrible. What is this even supposed to mean? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about if we kill all the technical stuff, and pull it back to conclusions?:

In their 2007 survey, Gerbasi et al examined what it meant to be a furry, and in doing so proposed a topology in which to categorise different "types" of furries. The largest group, at 38% of those surveyed, they described as being interested in furry fandom predominatly as a "route to socializing with others who share common interests such as anthropomorphic art and costumes." However they also identified furries who saw themselves as "other than human", and/or who desired to become more like the furry species which they took on as a persona. This distinction can be viewed in light of the findings of the larger Furry Survey, according to which a majority of furries consider themselves to be predominantly human, while about 6% do not consider themselves human at all.

I think that it is probably important, both because it is the purpose of the only academic paper of the topic, and because it provides balance: it highlights that many furries are simply interested in the art and socialisation, even though some strive to get more out of the experience. Aside from that, this survey doesn't talk about fursonas, but I've added a ref to the term. - Bilby (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - a mistake in the above. I have a couple of other academic papers on furries. What I should have said was "the only published academic survey" :) - Bilby (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd make a great addition.

Gah. The problem is that this crosses the original research ground - at least to best of my knowledge of the paper, which doesn't define the term "fursona", "personas adopted by", and, indeed, defines furries as either fans of art/fursuiting, and "sometimes" people who "associate with" a given species of animals - which also flies in face of some first- and third-party definitions we currently have.

Basically, we could be defying the definition of "Furry" itself here, thus rendering the data presented irrelevant to the subject of the article and, ultimately, misrepresenting. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR does let certain types of "original research" through, so long as it is obvious and would be drawn by anyone else in reading the same source. That's mostly to permit clear rewordings where appropriate, or to allow things like the source saying 48% do, so you write 52% don't. (Although this won't always logically be the case). :) In this case, the relevant line in the source is "For distorted unattained furries, the similarities between their connections to their species and ... " in which I read "their species" to be "the furry species which they took on as a persona". This is in keeping with the use of "their species" elsewhere in the article. Alternatively, the wording could become: "... and/or who desired to become more like the furry species which they identified with" which drops the use of persona, but is unquestionably in line with the article.

On the definitions issue, the reason why the article doesn't define "furry" is that it is part of the intent of the authors to discover what is meant by the term, hence this paragraph as part of their conclusion. However, the methodology required people to self-define: those they count as "furries" were those who stated that they were furries in the survey, which they distinguished from "non-furry participants" (those who stated that they were not furries, but were otherwise attending the convention), and the control group (as per normal in these papers, this consisted of university students). Thus I figure that their methodology is in keeping with the topic of the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. There is a sort-of definition of furry: "A furry is a person who identifies with the Furry Fandom culture", although the authors note that there is no standard definition, and thus I take this to be a working definition for the purposes of the survey. It's a generally accepted approach with subcultures lacking a clear deffinition: if someone says that they belong to the subculture, it is assumed that they do for the sake of teh research, unless there is a clear problem. I don't see that as an issue here, though. - Bilby (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the GAN comments above, and that there hasn't been further comments, I'm adding the modifed version of the text into the article. While it is imperfect, it represents the only academically published survey of furry fandom that I'm aware of, and should improve the existing section which relies on the Osaki survey alone. - Bilby (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor issues for the GA above

Just some minor suggestions:

• The statement "Since they are associated with strength, elegance and a sophisticated social behavior, many furries, (for example, over 60% of those surveyed in 2007), identify themselves with carnivorans." is still problematic, as the first part is unsourced, and nothing I've been able to find draws the two parts together. Perhaps removing the first part, changing it to "A variety of species are employed as the basis of these personas, although many furries, (for example over 60% of those surveyed in 2007), choose to identify themselves with carnivorans." would help?
• The line "Subcultures such as the were or therian and otherkin communities share similar beliefs with furry lifestylers." is unsourced and, as far as I can tell, is likely to be OR. It makes sense, so I can understand why it is there, but perhaps it would be better removed.
• "Differing approaches to sexuality have been a source of controversy and conflict in furry fandom." is also unsourced. Would it be better to replace it with something like "Media sources have often focused in issues of sexuality within furry fandom", as that would provide an intro to the section and is easily sourced, although it does become a tad redundent in relation to the next section.
• The section "Media coverage" seems to be only marginally about the media. Would it be better to rename it "Reception", "Community perceptions" or something like that?

- Bilby (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've left out the change regarding "Differing approaches to sexuality..." but made the other three, as they appeared to be uncontraversial. Hopefully that is indeed the case. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. I think the third one (Differing approaches to sexuality...) can stay for now, because it's is true, and easily verified by the existence of sites like CYD. But by saying this, I may have SYNned. -kotra (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of fun for the editors of this article.

http://xkcd.com/471/

(it is a webcomic)

65.189.146.128 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd!--129.7.251.1 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Sci-Fi?

What I miss out on in this article is a reference whatsoever to wookies - as yet there is none. Also in StarTrek (esp. TNG) there are appearances of charcters fitting the general description at the top of the article. Has thos just not yet been sufficiently considered or is there a good reason for excluding those? Would love to see them in the article...

--91.65.127.168 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's mostly a matter of proper verifiability. Yes, Wookiees are hairy, but is there any verifiable source talking about any interest in them in furry fandom? Similarly for any Star Trek races. I've personally seen some interest expressed by artists in M'Ress from the animated Star Trek series, but, again, it's OR unless we can find something published that talks about such interest. If you've got a good verifiable source that discusses it, feel free to point us to it or add to the article yourself! —Dajagr (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. The fact is that while wookiees do (mostly) fit the definition, they - along with the aliens of the Star Trek franchise - have no particular standing in furry fandom. There are many possible reasons for this, but here's a few:

• Wookiees originated before furry fandom became organized.
• Wookiees are commercial, mass market characters, in comparison to the personal, noncommercial nature of most furry characters. As a rule, furries are not fans of mass market characters, but "fans of each other". (There are exceptions, of course.)
• Wookiees - and similar alien races - are recognized as being part of science fiction fandom, not furry fandom. They are similar fandoms with similar topics - but make no mistake, they are separate, just as furry and anime are separate.
• Wookies are anthropomorphic aliens, not anthropomorphic animals - that is, they are not the equivalent of a terrestrial animal.

This is all debatable; species like the Skiltaire have similarly-described origins, and what does it matter what the original animals came from? But as a practical matter you just don't get wookiees walking around at furry cons or appearing in furry creations. They would likely be considered outdated and/or derivative. GreenReaper (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just gotta throw my obligatory two cents in here debunking the alleged "rule" that furries aren't fans of mass market characters. The main reason I got involved was because I'm a big Warner Brothers fan, and the fact that furry cons actively solicit mass market GoHs illustrates that furries as a rule are interested in them. (And as further evidence and a minor correction to GreenReaper's knowledge of fandom history, there actually is someone in furry fandom who owns/owned a Wookie fursuit.) —Xydexx (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the key detail here is that Wookiees (and other alien races in Star Wars, Star Trek, etc) are aliens, not anthropomorphic animals. But, as Dajagr says, if there are reliable sources.... -kotra (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, an issue with what I said is that there are several extra-terrestrial aliens in furry fandom (like the Skiltaire, which evolved extra-terrestrially). Another example are Caitians from Star Trek, which have a small fandom following. So I don't think it's as simple as aliens != furries, as convenient as that would be. It's more that popularity in one sphere of fandom does not necessarily transition to another. We say nothing about wookiees because they aren't notable in the fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that the two races you mention have a significant furry following. Perhaps I am interpreting "anthropomorphic animal" more strictly than most. I suppose the argument could be made that any non-human creature is an animal, including aliens, so aliens with some human characteristics could then, technically, be considered anthropomorphic animals. Calling it "furry" then would depend on if these "anthropomorphic animals" had a significant following in the fandom, as you say. -kotra (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...Why am I suddenly reminded of Cosmo? --Luigifan (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been automatically selected for WikiProject Furry (the selection statistics are quite revealing). This article is our main candidate - and potentially our only one - so it is vital that it reaches a publishable state by mid-October. GreenReaper (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-furries section

I removed this section because: 1. WikiFur is not itself a reliable source, and CYD and GHF are probably not either as per WP:RS, even as arguably valid examples of anti-furry sentiment, and 2. such a section is unencyclopedic anyway (simply having a large number of people not liking something doesn't mean we have to have a section about it, Neo-Nazism being an example. A Criticism section could be fine (assuming it's properly cited with reliable sources), but "Anti-furries" is a slang term for a very specific idea that has inadequate notability for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and doesn't really deserve mention here, let alone an entire section. -kotra (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Furry subculture

This article should be moved to furry subculture, as that would reflect the nature of the subculture more. Fandoms might include Trekkies and Sonic the Hedgehog fantards, but definitely not furries. There are not many uniform things about furries, unlike trekkies. Canada-kawaii (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We are all fans of anthropomorphic animals. As fandom notes, a fandom is "a subculture composed of fans characterized by a feeling of sympathy and camaraderie with others who share a common interest." Furry fandom is (by this definition) also a subculture, but that does not mean the article name should be "furry subculture". GreenReaper (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• A few minor additional points: I did a quick Google search, and the difference was roughly 40:1 in favour of "furry fandom", so it seems to be the most common use in public. A search under Google Scholar was less definitive, as neither get many hits, but "Furry fandom" is slightly ahead (with only eight hits to three, the sample size is too small to have any meaning). In addition, the term evolved from SF fandom, so it has a degree of historic precedent. On an unrelated note, I'd rather that the term fantard wasn't used, as it seems particularly insulting to those being referring to. - Bilby (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you both, because fandom could confuse a few people into thinking that furries are a fan of a specific thing, not the extremely broad category of anthropomorphic animals. To solve this dispute, I say we change the name of the article to Furries. Nothing afterwards; just Furries. Or furry. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)