Talk:Furry fandom

Furry lifestyler article

Someone has recreated an article to replace the redirect that was put in place after an AFD in 2006. I've questioned whether an article should exist or whether it should be included in this article on Talk:Furry lifestyler, but thought I'd mention it here as well. I don't see how a lifestyler article could possibly stand alone, myself, and would encourage replacing the redirect. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with reverting it to the redirect. It looks to me like all the user did was to lift the relevant section out of Furry fandom into its own article (even the previously reverted version is arguably better if we're going to discuss recreating the article). I've gone ahead and reverted it to the redirect. --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought I'd ask before I did anything precipitous, as work travel has melted my brain. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an argument that we need more coverage of the "community" aspects, separate from "fan activity", but since fandom is itself defined as a subculture this is still the best place for it. GreenReaper (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Example picture

The example picture is Zoomorphic, not Anthromorphic. Please fix article. Zoomorphic is a human with animal traits. Anthromorphic an animal or object that's personified with human traits. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term is "anthropomorphic," not "anthromorphic." Secondly, according to several dictionaries, "anthropomorphic" means "represented with human characteristics or under a human form"; "having or representing a human form." The idea behind the character is not a human given animal characteristics (zoomorphic) but vice versa. —Dajagr (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikifur Link exclusion

WikiFur is as pertinent as EncyclopediaDramatica, made-up infos, no privacy for artists or members involved on the fandom, why is there still a link about it there? the intentions of WikiFur's staff are only to spam any furry/anthro-related site to promote a certain group of furry porn sites and fetishes. That's no information and even less as social or art site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.251.24.19 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed WikiFur's personal exclusion policy. I'm also confused by the accusation of promotion; the site promotes everything furry - that's why it has articles on, say, Furocity, and does not use nofollow. Conversely, Wikipedia is not intended to promote websites, and that's why the link you added was removed . . . which I think is the real issue here. I'm not anti-Furocity (and nor is Mwalimu, I'm sure) - just this month I suggested some changes to the site owner that led to speed improvements. But given Wikipedia's external link policy, it's hard to justify mentioning it here when it's only just come out of beta, and offers little over similar community sites while having perhaps 1/50th of their traffic. I've added it to the Open Directory's adult furry art section instead (like Fur Affinity and Yiffstar, it cannot go in the main section as it contains mature works). GreenReaper (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He has a point, though. Those people running WikiFur are anti-mundane. --67.183.17.14 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't everybody? ;-) GreenReaper (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Really. In arguments, WikiFur always sides with the furry. That, in case you haven't noticed, is not right and really isn't link material from such a venerable site as Wikipedia. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear what "arguments" you mean, but perhaps part of the issue is that a) like Wikipedia, we're not all that keen about uncited derogatory information about people, and b) most of our articles about people are about furries. GreenReaper (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. WikiFur is most definitely not link material. Any articles on any furries are whitewashed and any info that doesn't show a furry in a positive light is censored. How convenient. Like ED, no citations are made to back up articles. Plus, I don't think we're supposed to link to other wikis anyway. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use wikis as references. Linking to them is fine as long as they are directly pertinent. WikiFur is website about furries. ED is a website about a bunch of things, of which furries are a fraction. If, for the sake of argument, we consider them otherwise equal in terms of accuracy and useful information, ED's coverage of furries is still narrower than WikiFur. And, since we can't include links to every website that talks about furries, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply think that linking to such a website gives the impression that WikiFur is unbiased and is okay to cite things from. They allow furries to do whatever they want with articles about themselves. Not only is that what I feel is the flat-out worst way to run a wiki, I and other information junkies out there would repulse at even the thought that Wikipedia would endorse a site like that by linking to it as a direct information source about the subject.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "endorsement", nor does linking to it imply it is a reliable (or cite-able) source. If Wikipedia considered it a reliable source, it would cite it as a reference, not link to it as an external link. The only statement Wikipedia makes about websites by including them in external link sections is that they contain further information about the topic that is beyond the scope of the article. Wikipedia isn't endorsing Fox News or Taliban by simply linking to their websites, it's only providing relevant resources. -kotra (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

KFG, your statement is inaccurate. We don't allow individuals to "do whatever they want with articles about themselves." Like Wikipedia, we do not forbid individuals from participating as editors; as a practical matter we know it is impossible to prevent them from editing, and we'd rather they do so under their own name than that of a sock puppet. GreenReaper (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if WikiFur is unbiased, (It most DEFINITELY isn't) there are much better and more informative sites to link to. As for the claim that I lied about your policy of letting furries editing articles about themselves, to quote one of your admins, "it's up to the article's user's how he/she/hir/it likes to be referred in paper, electronic media or real life". I don't know about you all out there, but that sounds a lot like allowing furries to do whatever they want with articles about themselves. Please stick to the topic, (that "not forbidding" statement was totally unrelated) and do your homework before lying to my face, Reaper. Thank you. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your tone is bordering on personal attacks and incivility. If you're going to continue this discussion, please keep it objective and diplomatic.

One of the objectives of the Wikipedia furry fandom article is that it should include links to additional resources for readers who would like to know where to go for additional information. Frankly I'd be hard pressed to recommend a better source than Wikifur, but you're welcome to recommend others you think may be better, or at least good enough to be worth including in the Wikipedia article. The Wikifur articles about general topics have been worked on by numerous editors and improved over time, and a lot of the content is the sort of thing that's well-known based on numerous people's personal and anecdotal experience but which has seldom or never been independently documented in a manner that would stand up to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The articles are not sanitized or intentionally biased, except insofar as some types of controversial or derogatory information (particularly about individuals) is held to a higher standard of verifiability and sourcing. One situation we run into both there and here is that people come along with a preconceived notion that the portrayal of furries in places like CSI and Vanity Fair is basically accurate, and when they find the articles don't bear that out, they think the articles are biased.

With respect to the particular quote you used here, it was taken out of context from a discussion about someone's gender identity and a decision by Wikifur admins to allow people to go by whatever gender they choose to self-identify as rather than their legal or physiological gender; it was not intended to be a broad policy statement about Wikifur as a whole. I also noted that you (or someone using your name) was a participant in that discussion and it makes me wonder if you brought the discussion over here because you have an axe to grind. If you have issues with how a particular article or incident was handled on Wikifur, the place to deal with it is there, not here. --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Concurragementiosisage with this guy here. You won't get nowhere contradicting the rules like this. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I start typing, I would like to say that Kaizer13's statement did not appear to make sense. Anything clearing up his comment would be appreciated.

What I said on that site was unrelated and I have no bone to pick with GreenReaper beyond what is being said here. My main concern with WikiFur is that on numerous occasions they have failed to tell both sides of the story on numerous articles and establish what is known as an NPOV that is REQUIRED here at Wikipedia. Seeing WikiFur's failure to grasp such a concept makes me wonder why a site like Wikipedia is linking to a site like WikiFur, indirectly implying that the wiki is an unbiased NPOV-based source of information endorsed by Wikipedia editors, because if they didn't endorse the site and it's activities, they probably wouldn't have linked to the site in the first place. I know and you know that the site doesn't even claim to be unbiased, but a venerable site like this linking to WikiFur gives that impression. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikifur is inappropriate as a inline citation (user-generated content makes it an unreliable source) and as an external link (per WP:ELNO point 12). At best it could be mined for sources, if they are reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." (emphasis mine) This describes WikiFur, no? It has a history of stability, a large number of editors, and is not a mirror or fork of Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to imagine a world where WikiFur is stable. Then again, I'd like to imagine a world with a liberal-run Fox News, a majority of Mac users over Windows users, and World Peace, but it just ain't gonna happen. WikiFur endures attack after attack from groups like Anonymous and the Patriotic Nigras. Then again, the rules' definition of stable is a very broad definition, and interpretations vary. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it such. 12,500 pages isn't that much, and at some point I did an analysis of wikifur (I believe it was for the vorarephilia page) and it came up short, with a stagnant editing history, dwindling number of editors, and a topic that in general resists reliable sources because there isn't much research on it. The stats don't really impress me. But if you're really curious, bring it up at WT:EL or a WP:RFC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He's right. It took a good 15 minutes for me find a page that included citations to a reliable source. (e.g. One that isn't a blog, FA profile, or wiki) I would like to ask Wikipedians out there: Is that really link material from such a prominent site like this? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging a WikiFur article by the presence or lack thereof of citations is missing the point. While Wikipedia relies on the reflected authenticity of those it cites, WikiFur relies on the expertise of its editors in a narrowly-defined field. Where Wikipedia is a tertiary source, WikiFur is often a secondary or even a primary source. Where Wikipedia rejects original research, WikiFur embraces it, on the basis that other editors are sufficiently qualified to challenge inaccurate material. Where Wikipedia editors might read a news report on a furry convention, WikiFur's editors are writing it while in the audience at closing ceremonies, or counting the fursuits in the parade as they pass by.

Take our timelines of charity donations and convention attendance. As it happens, most figures are referenced to external sources (for conventions, on the relevant articles), but many of these sources would not be considered suitable for Wikipedia - not because they are untrue, but because the average Wikipedian lacks the ability to verify their accuracy. Conversely, WikiFur's editors are able to evaluate such primary sources - just as any good journalist can write about their beat.

Now, do all of our 12,500 articles provide a useful resource for readers? Of course not. That is a judgment that editors should make on a case-by-case basis for all external links. Some Wikipedia articles are as good as or better than their equivalents on WikiFur, in which case it makes little sense to link them. Other WikiFur articles have real value to readers, offering details and context beyond that which Wikipedia can hope to provide, and should be linked.

As for the "waves of attacks", I hate to disillusion you, but this has not been the case for the past four years. We get petty vandalism from time to time, but this usually affects articles about non-notable people and often comes from those close to them. We run a recent changes monitoring channel for all wikifur.com-hosted languages, and our admins are more than capable of dealing with such issues as they arise. GreenReaper (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Partially echoing GreenReaper's comments, the points about WikiFur's lack of citations to reliable sources would be well taken... if it were used as a source. But Wikipedia is not concerned about what method an external link uses to verify its information. There is nothing in our policies and guidelines, as far as I have been able to find, that restricts external links due to their method of verification; nor is it standard practice. Let's keep in mind that external links are merely online resources where further information (reliable or not!) can be found, and we place very little qualitative judgment on them. Does it diminish Wikipedia's integrity to include a link to Weekly World News's website, or the Taliban's, or Fox News's, in an external links section distinctly separated from the references? If the answer is no then why would WikiFur be different in this case, as it is certainly a useful resource for readers seeking more information? -kotra (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaper, my little droog, you need to understand some things:

-Linking to the site is just going to lead to furries claiming that the site should be citation material. Let's not set a chain reaction.

-There are much better pages documenting the furry fandom in a concise and NPOV-based manner. Let's try Googling the term and see what comes up, and check if it's a reliable source.

-Based on what you said is your site's policy on original research, if there was a WikiFur page on, say, Soda Pop, then I could go ahead and take the Pepsi Challenge and subsequently claim that Pepsi-Cola physically tastes better than Coca-Cola, which, by your logic, can be presented as fact on your Wiki. Again, is a site like that link material? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be deleted; it's not within the topic of the wiki, and we wouldn't consider ourselves qualified to judge its accuracy. As for conciseness, you miss the point - external links are intended to provide more information than that article they are attached to. Here there is a need for conciseness, to the point that many details may be excised even if they are verifiable. On WikiFur, such details would normally remain, making it a useful resource for readers who wish to know more. GreenReaper (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

KFG, if I saw WikiFur used as a source in Wikipedia, I would personally remove it. Open wikis are not allowed as references, period. It's written into our guidelines. You don't need to worry about that hypothetical scenario. Furries can claim it's citeable all they want (though most of the furries I've seen on Wikipedia would know better), but they would be going against broader consensus and they wouldn't win. -kotra (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, WikiFur isn't a valid source, Just look at this article http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Wolfee_Darkfang .It says this guy was hacked, but the only thing it cites is his personal site. And this article has no citations http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/YouTube_Furry_War Neither and this only has one source that is cited twice, http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Yiff How can a website that cites like this be a reliable source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.95 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, we reverted you . . . that's surely a factor in our favour. ;-)

Of the three articles you mentioned, Yiff is the only one which I can ever see linking (though Wiktionary covers common usage), and I'd probably want to clean it up first. Still, despite the poor formatting, to the best of my knowledge (and the knowledge of our other editors) everything on there is true. This is what matters to us, and ultimately it's what matters to most readers, which is why such articles may be useful to link on a case-by-case basis. GreenReaper (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not being used as a source. We aren't disputing that WikiFur is an unreliable source for Wikipedia to cite. We are discussing whether or not to include it as an external link, which is very different from a source or reference. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why reverting me is a point in your favor. This I.P. address does belong to I.P.S. also known as "The Rebellion" which is a group against trolling and other such things, yes I did make the edit that you reverted. I could not cite a source as whyweprotest.org deleted my thread soon after a person on it admitted to trolling furry sites. Also, as for an external link I think it should be added then, since it's a link and not a citation (Thank's for pointing that out I didn't see it at first), that Wikifur technically isn't hosted with the wiki chain of sites anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.95 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That reverting comment was totally unrelated and off-topic, Reaper. Basing a claim that your wiki is 100% accurate and correct on the testimonies of your cohorts is just plain crazy. Linking to a site that fails to create ANY NPOV-based or citation-based documentation in addition to reverting all edits that go against the beliefs of the owner or his cohorts (or even the subject, in the case of Wolfee Darkfang) is flat-out unacceptable for a site like this. I understand that WikiFur is not being used as a source. But if we link to it, we might as well do that. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "external links don't need to be reliable to be included" are you not getting? Why is it so very terribly important that we don't have an external link to WikiFur? What is your interest here? I note on your user page you're "here to help clean up Wikipedia from misinformation on subjects like Furries, Anonymous, Second Life, and the Church of Scientology" - what is it about a couple of external links, included in Wikipedia articles that are based on reliable sources, threatens you so? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is on my user page is totally irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that WikiFur is not the best source for furry information and there are better sites. We should link to sites that are stably establishing a Neutral point of view, a category which WikiFur definitely doesn't belong to. While reliable ELs aren't required, I and a lot of people out there feel they have an obligation to place pertinent, accurate, and NPOV-based information portals up. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. What, in your view, would those NPOV-based information portals be, considering that the links to WikiFur are not intended to act as reliable sources but as further information references? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This. A quick glance does not reveal the common (and very dubious) claim that most furries do not take advantage of the sexual aspects of the fandom (look/draw/fap to sexually suggestive pics, participate in fursuit sex, et al.) seen in many furry-owned and operated websites. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Remind me again how this is an argument against WikiFur, which has a whole category devoted to paraphilias? (Incidentally, the site you linked is the personal website of Anthrocon's operations director, who is also a WikiFur administrator.) GreenReaper (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point being.... --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're saying it's a better site to link to because it does not make a particular claim. It's unclear how your reasoning applies to WikiFur, which not only does not make that claim, but has numerous articles dedicated to such topics. GreenReaper (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Zooanthoropomorphic

Shouldn't all the instances of "anthropomorphic" and "zoomorphic" be replaced with "zooanthropomorphic" ? Not all furry beings are animals with human characteristics (anthropomorphic) or human with animal characteristics (zoomorphic), the pattern is beings with both human AND animal characteristics.--TiagoTiago (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because "zooanthropomorphic" isn't a word. :-) "Anthropomorphic animals" is the correct term. GreenReaper (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to google for "zooanthropomorphic" and after you read a good sample of the search results re-evaluate your opinion about "zooanthropomorphic"s status as a word. --TiagoTiago (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There's zoanthropy, but that refers to a human being with animal characteristics, not an animal character with human characteristics. FireWolf Flux (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA material?

With improvement to the history and lead sections, anybody think that the article will pass GA? If not, could you share on what else needs to be improved? RP9 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think the sources aren't good enough. Many (most?) of them are on the border of reliable source criteria at best, and there are still a few useful, important, but uncited statements that could be easily challenged. We know this is not an easy problem to fix, though, as what we normally consider "reliable sources" (third-party, independent published works with a solid reputation for fact-checking) don't usually cover this topic (and when they do, often do it poorly). But this is just my view; GA reviewers may be more lenient. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I should qualify the above by mentioning that I do think it is very close, though. -kotra (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The last GA review was a little more than a year ago and a lot has changed, except quite noticeably the history section. Perhaps I could review the article as if it was a GA review just to get an idea of what sources are lacking, what needs expansion, further explanation, etc. RP9 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the sources swiftly. Many of them seem fine. Certain statements that use multiple examples to seemingly "prove" their validity need to be worded differently or use a different source. Such as "While most of this fan-created art is distributed through nonprofessional media[<-- need source here], such as personal websites,[12][13][14][<-- these are just links to personal websites] some is published in anthologies, by Amateur Press Associations, or in APAzines.[15]" There are some weaselly statements here and there as well. Nothing that can't be fixed reasonably though. My concern is finding good sources on the more recent history of the fandom. RP9 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could try here for a start. GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yiffstar link again

I feel that the Yiffstar link should be removed from the page. Werewolffan98 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about Werewolf but I'd argue that primarily only links that further explain and provide information about the subject should be linked, otherwise it would seem to breach WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. So this would apply to any furry art site, although I'm sure VCL and FurAffinity are significant to the fandom and I really have no idea about Yiffstar, they do not provide any useful information about the fandom in general much less any information beyond what the article currently has. It might make sense to link to maybe one of the art sites per "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." RP9 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be FA, as it clearly has an edge in size and traffic. I've cut Yiffstar and the VCL; they are both represented on the adult ODP page, which I've linked. GreenReaper (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have the link, please?--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the external links section. GreenReaper (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexual aspects

Since the whole thing is just a big fetish, why include a "sexual aspects" section instead of re-formatting the entire article to reflect more accurately what it truly is? Someone who's new to the subject may even think it's not a sexual thing, and think of it as an alternate lifestyle instead of a variation of zoophilia.201.231.75.153 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the case of the article. It did started out as a certain culture before it started being exploited for its sexual tendencies. That wouldn't sound neutral for the furry fandom, since you want to limit the idea of a furry fandom to the sexual amterial and not the entire culture itself. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But it, in fact, isn't. I don't know how many furs out there will get turned on by pictures of Krystal from Star fox, nor do I know exactly how many participate in fursuit sex, and I will admit that many of them do, but to say every furry in the whole entire world is into that kind of thing is totally incorrect. Those of you who'd say "But that's the average furry's retort! You must be one of them!" would be correct, but hear me out. Being a fur myself, I go to numerous websites surrounding the fandom. Of all those people, only a few would ever even consider the things you accuse us all of doing. I think Wikipedia should be a source of fair information that includes everyone, from the freaks to those with a mere interest in something. Opinions? --74.78.193.84 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are most definitely many Krystal fans among furries, only a small fraction of fursuiters engage in fursuit sex (probably in the single digits, percentage wise, though I don't know of any surveys on the question or how reliable they'd be if someone attempted it), not even what I'd call a significant minority, and even that is before factoring in that only about 15-25% of furry fans are fursuiters. I think the commenter who started this section may be someone who came here with preconceived notions about furry fandom, and upon finding that the article doesn't bear out their expectations, they would rather assume the article is wrong and biased than consider that their preconceptions might not be very accurate. Either that, or he's simply trolling. --mwalimu59 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the current results from the 2010 Furry Survey gives a rather solid representation of the fandom and percentages on some of the questions raised herein. Silverseren^C 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While it might be WP:OR to include it, as a non-furry I find the results of that survey quite interesting - particularly the finding that the majority of respondents said sex was of low importance to them compared with the rest of society. Perhaps the sexual aspects of the fandom have indeed been exaggerated by us 'norms'. Robofish (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the survey is already used as a source in the article, in the second to last sentence. I was just putting it here as a response to the originator of this section, as an example of various beliefs and viewpoints of the fandom. And, as a furry, I would say that, yes, you norms exaggerate things about us a lot. :P Silverseren^C 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

hello, and i'm a furry from....

hello, and i'm a furry from japan, i think some of thse articles are offensive, but hey, it's just info. so do what you want! as being a furry in japan, i decided "why don't we make a town? one with a castle-like structure!" so then we got building! it was hard work! and also, furrys also discover new lands if they are from japan, and set up towns in secrete, like a forest town, disguised with the plants... my pont is i am from japan, and as a furry from japan, i just want to say... its an honor to be on wikipedia!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donteatcorn (talk ...And this is revelant to the ARTICLE why? --74.78.193.84 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) • contribs) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

the hell is this? 98.114.122.7 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

its a source. Now we can claim that furfags are everywhere and are stupid.

sexual aspect of furries

I tried to add the fact that furries often have a sexual paraphilia for anthro animals to the opening paragraph, but was threatened with a ban by silver seren.

wtf is that about?

Doktordoris (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For further reference, this section is about this edit and my reversion of it. I put a standard template on the above user's talk page regarding defamation. Still not entirely sure if that was the correct one to use or not or whether I should have used one of the others. I mis-took the edit to be malicious in nature, which is why I ended up using a Level 3 template. Since this does not seem to be the case, I believe now that I probably should have used a Level 1 or 2 template. However, I stand by what I said here, in response to the question on my talk page. Silverseren^C 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I too am sorry for the hostile nature of my post above.

I have no axe to grind. I just think for the casual reader, as I was 10 mins ago, that the sex aspect is an important thing to mention.

Sorry silver, I meant no offence.

Doktordoris (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for being tense in my responses. We've had too many other IPs and users attempt to vandalize the page and so I jumped straight to the thought that you were trying to add that sentence for malicious reasons. Clearly, this is not true, so I apologize for that. As for whether sexual aspects are really that important to the fandom, you may wish to read the above section and other discussions in the past here and, especially this one, here. Silverseren^C 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

tish and bibble silver, no matter.

thanks for responding like a gentleman, I meant no ill and after learning that the page is a common target for hostile edits and vandalism I entirely understand your initial response.

toodle-oo

Doktordoris (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Furrydom and Furdom

While I really, really hate the BBC article, this uses both furrydom and furdom, so we should be able to use it as a reference for the alternate titles in the first line, right? Silverseren^C 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because they don't get it right doesn't mean that we have to follow suit. --Conti|✉ 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm wanting to use that source to reference the alternate names of the furry fandom, where there's currently a "Citation needed" tag. Silverseren^C 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that we should include those terms in the first place, since they are - if at all - used extremely rarely. Not to mention that the article calls a fursuit a "fur suit", which is just blatantly false. Doesn't make me trust the source too much. --Conti|✉ 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the terms outright. The alternate terms redirect to this article anyway. ^GB86 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New image

As good as she looks, I don't think the vixen representing the fandom should have dyed hair/fur. It should be more natural, so she can represent the fandom in a more general sense. Not to say to revert to the greyscale version, but perhaps stick to red, orange, brown, and white. — Supuhstar * § 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

True, we're not trying to represent the fandom as ravers. :P Silverseren^C 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll replace it with the older version until someone comes forward with a more reasonable coloring. — Supuhstar * § 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)