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 July 2008 – September 2008

Picasso a furry

Can someone please add the fact that Pablo Picasso drew furry images too? Evidence can be seen here: http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/greekroman/images/PabloPicasso-Minotaur-Caressing-a-Sleeping-Woman-1933.jpg 83.78.5.83 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (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)

I've made mention of the websites in the Public perception and media coverage section. Much more appropriate. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I have a couple of comments about your additions, even with adding them in a new section:

• First, CrushYiffDestroy, on its own "about" page, says the following: "This site was originally created for our own amusement. . . and with no particular agenda or program in mind." This (from the primary source) seems to contradict your edit saying that CYD was "set up to oppose the fandom."
• Second, I question whether "God Hates Furries" is really notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. If you look at the site itself, it gets updated maybe once or twice a year. It's mentioned in no sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable that I know of (if you can cite one, please do!).

It seems to me that this addition is mostly original research. —Dajagr (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree; we've talked about these sites multiple times in the past on this page, and this is about what we've determined. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I second Tony Fox's agreement with Dajagr, and have removed the sentence accordingly. -kotra (talk) 18:37, 12 November 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)

If the reader is not willing or able to read the very first line of this article, I do not think we need to worry about whether or not they are confused. GreenReaper (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fandom" just means a bunch of people who are fans of something. It doesn't have to be a narrow, specific thing, it can be broad too, hence Science fiction fandom. -kotra (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same thing. :) If anything, SF fandom is broader than furry fandom. The idea of calling the page "Furries" seems ok, and I can certainly see strengths in that view, but in the end I don't think it offers and really significant advantages over Furry Fandom, and to some extent conflicts with another common use of the term, where it is used to describe small furry animals. (When I was digging up references I needed to add the fandom to distinguish between the two, as so many hits had nothing to do with furry fandom). Thus, in balance, I prefer leaving things as they stand. - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned SF and fantasy. Just to toss out a couple more examples, I'm pretty sure anime fandom uses the term. Gaming, comics, LARP, and SCA might also, and none of those are based on any one or a relatively small set of works. Furry fandom is not alone in that regard. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I say we solve this dispute by just calling the page Furries. That's what almost everyone calls them, so I say that furries is the best term. Canada-kawaii (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one advocating that the name be changed. The article is not about the people; rather, it is about the fandom, so "furries" not not an appropriate term. (It does discuss the people, but only insofar as they are a part of the fandom.) The phrase "furry subculture" is, as demonstrated by the aforementioned Google search, a term in significantly lower usage, so it is also less appropriate. Currently, I believe that "Furry Fandom" is the most appropriate title for the article. —Dajagr (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a compromise name for the article, because you don't call the page on Star Trek fans "Star Trek fandom", you call it "Trekkies". Given that logic, "Furries" would be the only acceptable option. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a parallel situation. Trekkie is about Star Trek fans, not Star Trek fandom. This page is more parallel to Science fiction fandom, which has already been mentioned, as well as Harry Potter fandom, Tolkien fandom, and Doctor Who fandom. —Dajagr (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't personally call the page on Star Trek fans anything, because I don't consider myself to have enough knowledge of that fandom. This page is not about the fans per se, but about the fandom that they are a part of. That is why that article uses the word "fan" and this article uses the word "fandom" - and, presumably, why it has a huge list of famous Star Trek fans. GreenReaper (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

...then we should have a page on the actual furries themselves, and one on the community/fandom/subculture. 75.157.133.136 (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to write a new article. However, keep in mind the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Trekkies have films written about them. Although furry fandom at large receives some notability (see the references in the article), my experience is that less is written about them individually. Nevertheless, if you can find verifiable and notable information about the fans, a new article would be interesting to see. —Dajagr (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do Wikifur, ED and large numbers of FA and DA journals count as verifiable by consensus between them? 75.157.136.144 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you read the Wikipedia verifiability policy, especially the part about self-published sources. However, the short answer to your question is no: ". . .Personal websites, open wikis, . . . forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." This is why I suggested that both notability and verifiability would be a challenge for this article. Furthermore, you also should avoid original research when creating such an article. I'm certainly not telling you not to write such an article, but I think you should be aware of the challenges that will face you in writing it. Personally, I believe that the information in this article is sufficient for the topic, especially since the disambiguation page for Furry already points to this article, but that's just my opinion. —Dajagr (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, you'd treat Furry Fandom exactly as you would Star Trek and Anime. For any cultural phenomenon there should be a page on the parent subject, Star Trek, Anime, Furry Entertainment. Then a page on the relative fandoms, Trekkies, Otaku and Furries. The reason you can't do that with Furry is because it is an unprofessionally documented fandom. The best information available is from blogs and gossip sites. While what little media accounts you have to work with are made working with the same problem. Thus they are poorly researched and often sensationalized for ratings. Not really encyclopedic.

The medium of entertainment itself is not notable enough to have had a great deal written on it in professional publications, which is why there is no Furry Entertainment page to start with. Furry Entertainment is a mixture of titles and characters from many unrelated genres. Those other genres are written about, and the Furry titles just mixed in. Furries draw out these titles and characters setting them together in a new, and as yet officially unrecognized or officially defined group. No doubt this will be done in the future, but as of yet there's no way to document this without original research.

Hence you are in the somewhat tricky situation of having a recognized fandom for an unrecognized entertainment phenomenon. And Wikipedia just doesn't leave you the option to do it right. Thus, if your Furry Fandom article doesn’t seem to work, it’s because it lacks the parent entertainment page to give it the balance the other fandom articles have.

I have a suggestion to get around this problem. Since Wikifur is not so restricted, why not work in conjunction with Wikifur to perfect a Furry Entertainment article over there. Then this article would be free to focus on the fandom for that type of entertainment. That way you could do the original research. You could develop a consensus of just exactly what you’re dealing with, and maybe even alleviate some of the controversy. Perri Rhoades (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is one significant difference between furry fandom and those other fandoms you mentioned. The others are fans of works created by someone else such as a corporate entity - publishers, movie studios, etc., and most fan-produced works are derivative of these, whereas in furry fandom, a much larger portion of the works are original works produced by the fans themselves. There are some major commercially produced works, of course, such as major animated films and commercially published novels, but it's the fan-produced works that really give the fandom a lot of its character.

I don't know if "furry entertainment" would be recognized as such by anyone not familiar with the fandom. I've told people before that the use of animals in stories and pictures is ubiquitous enough in works targeted at children that I don't really count those as furry; it's when they're used in stories designed to appeal to adults as well as children, or especially in works that are not appropriate for children, that you're into the realm of furry entertainment (and I'm not just referring to sex and nudity with the latter; it could also be on account of violence, profanity, thematic content, etc.). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The claims that Furry Fandom is not "professionally" documented, "officially" (?) recognized, and that the best information comes from blogs and gossip sites is demonstrably false. Furry fandom has actually appeared in a cornucopia of reliable professional media sources such as newspaper articles, television news reports, and books. So here's a better suggestion: Perhaps instead of inventing new terms we could use the nearly thirty-something years of information on Furry Fandom that is already well established? Furry! The World's Best Anthropomorphic Fiction published in 2006 by award-winning author and fandom historian Fred Patten has a particularly solid definition and description of the fandom. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to learn more about what Furry Fandom is all about. —Xydexx (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply put, in the first sentence, Furry fandom is a fandom or subculture] devoted to..." (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Because "furry fandom" does not mean "furry fandom or subculture", it just means "furry fandom". If this article was titled "Furry fandom and subculture" or "Furry (fandom and subculture)" then certainly the article should cover both. But currently, the article is titled "furry fandom" and that's what it's about. I see no reason to change that. -kotra (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The notion of "furry subculture" would more closely match "furry lifestyle" than "furry fandom", though I have little doubt there are those who would draw a distinction between a lifestyle and a subculture. One can try to think of examples of subcultures that are not fandoms; goths and punks come to mind. When you think about furry fans who have taken their interest to that level, what you're more or less talking about are furry lifestylers. So, notwithstanding the "subculture" vs. "lifestyle" question, one would think a reasonable resolution is to have an article on furry lifestyle. But, alas, there used to be one, and it got AfD'ed with the result that it was trimmed down and merged into furry fandom. Take it as you will... --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Watership down?

To me, as a self-confessed non-furry, Watership Down seems a curious choice as an example of furry prehistory. This work is anthropomorphic only in that the animals are intelligent and communicate by speech. They are anatomically and behaviorally rabbits, and can't communicate with humans. I would have said that both the book and the film make an effort to keep as far as possible from furry territory.

As better examples, I would have expected for example Alice in Wonderland, the works of Beatrix Potter, or even The Jungle Book. These significantly predate Watership Down, and also fit the genre much better. On the other hand, maybe Watership Down resonates more strongly with the Furry community because it was released at the time when they were at the right age to be deeply affected by it. If that is the reason for the reference however, then this link should be more explicity noted.

Mind you, I know nothing of furrydom. I'm willing to accept that I'm all wrong, but I do think that if that is the case then the article is missing some explanation. Any thoughts? • TheBendster (talk) 22 October 2008, 11:41 (UTC)

It's not that they look human, it's that that they act like people - not necessarily human people, but with at least close-to-human-level intelligence. They make plans, they solve problems - they show love, fear, and hatred. Intelligence and emotions are the characteristics which we cherish in humanity; without them, an animal with the shape of a human is a monster or a cripple, not a furry. A society of intelligent ants would be more anthropomorphic than that, though they might remained unable to communicate with humans.

Watership Down is highlighted because it is a well-known, serious portrayal of the concept of anthropomorphic animals. It is not comedy (Tom and Jerry), nor metaphor (Maus), nor high fantasy (Alice in Wonderland). It is saying "these animals are people too, and if they were intelligent, here is the story that they might tell."

The Jungle Book and Beatrix Potter's works are in a similar vein, and are arguably within the definition of "furry", but they share a decidedly more moralistic and less mature treatment of the topic - they feature talking animals, used (in part) to make a point to children about real life. They might count, but for all their financial success I wouldn't consider them as significant to the topic as Watership Down. GreenReaper (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Watership Down isn't an allegory of something, in the same way Maus is. At the very least it's an allegory of certain human behaviors in terms of wars and strategies. That being the case, I would wonder why Animal Farm wouldn't be more significant in terms of age. Perri Rhoades (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"On the other hand, maybe Watership Down resonates more strongly with the Furry community because it was released at the time when they were at the right age to be deeply affected by it."

Really, this is pretty much it, it my experience. For those of us coming into the fandom just as the Internet was becoming popular, Watership Down and (to a lesser extent) Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH were the first exposure we had to anthropomorphic fiction that dealt with serious subjects like murder, disease and such. One reason they're more influential on the fandom than, say, Animal Farm, is that the characters are the central focus of the story, rather than simply being caricatures for allegorical influences. They have many human characteristics, but are not simply "Corporate Businessman Stand In #1" or "Military Power Figure #15." They were people (albeit in the form of animals) dealing with very serious problems. Making them animals made the problems a bit more abstract, without diluting the figures themselves.

I'm rambling, sorry. The point is, that this has been my experience, however you're unlikely to find a reliable source for such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yiffstar redirects here, but no mention of it is present

why if "Yiffstar" redirects to this page, it isn't even mentioned at all? --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia?

Shouldn't it be mentioned Furries obsession with child porn they call "cub" Softpaw Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapztick (talk • contribs) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it's strictly an internal debate at this point, though you could try scraping up some sources from WikiFur's relevant news articles. The decision of some (but not all) conventions to ban it and Fur Affinity to allow it could also be relevant, along with the original sources' stated reasoning for each decision. The fact that Softpaw is printed in Canada might also be contrasted with lolicon's illegality there (Canadian law says "person", but their interpretation of the law makes specific reference to human children). GreenReaper (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that only a relatively small subset of furries are fans of this sort of cub art, which also has some outspoken opponents (as the references in GreenReaper's reply will bear out). It would be highly inaccurate to say that all or most furries are obsessed with it, or that the ones who are are pedophiles. --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fursecution redirects here

Fursecution redirects to Furry fandom but I don't see the word "fursecution" on this page. If someone was looking up information about fursecution you won't find it here. But, you will find it on WikiFur. Maybe the things that redirect here, if it can be found on WikiFur should also provide a link directly to the parts of WikiFur that describe what you are looking for. --zzo38(✉) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone's looking for information on "fursecution", they're unlikely to find it in Wikipedia, period - it's simply not a notable concept. A general article on the furry fandom is the closest you're going to get. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where would the link to WikiFur's Fursecution article be? I can't think of any appropriate place. -kotra (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)