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

Furryboots City

Perhaps veering off-topic a little, but it might be helpful to have a link to "Furryboots City" for disambiguation if nothing else :) . . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All furrys are gay ?

I just want to ask a question ? Are all Furs gay ? like GreenRaper ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.204.186 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the tone of your question seems suspiciously like trolling, (especially the misspelling of GreenReaper, if it was intentional) I'm going to assume good faith here...

This is addressed in the article in the sections entitled "Fandom survey" and "The University of California, Davis survey". Keep in mind too that this page for discussing the Wikipedia article about furry fandom, not for discussions about furry fandom in general. There are other more appropriate venues for that. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The explanation offered for the etymology of the term within the subculture is that it is an onomatopoeia for the sound foxes make when mating.

Putting aside that very uncomfortable question-- How did they know what foxes mating in the wild sound like? Was it from some kind of personal experience or what?-- for a moment, I don't think this is accurate. There is no one, single expanation for the invention of the term. I could find several online articles by furries with different theories. The Squicks (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please find them, then. Honestly, the reason given in the article is the only one I've heard, and is the most-quoted. -- Kesh (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be rephrased better to make it clearer that it's a fictionalized, "folk" explanation that has little or no basis in fact. Whether has any basis in legend or prior fiction might be worth researching; offhand I'm not aware of any pre-furry fandom references. Does Wikipedia have any policy on a word such as this when its origins are unclear or lost in obscurity? (And this being Wikipedia, one might reasonably ask whether the term's origin is notable enough to include in the article.) --Mwalimu59 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked a little further into this and found out this is covered in more detail on Wikifur. I updated the article based on what I was able to find there and the references it points to. I realize some don't consider Wikifur a reliable source, but even if that's true, it's clear that the term "yiff" is in widespread usage and it's reasonable to ask where the term originated. For a question like that it could be argued that a less than ideal reference is better than no reference at all. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be an RS, but it seems to be the best description I've found anywhere. I like your addition to this section. Good work! -- Kesh (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to the punch. Thanks for finding it. The Squicks (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The essential question still remains, though. How did they know what artic foxes mating sounds like? The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same way we found out that whipping cow's milk for hours on end produces butter. Word of mouth or some weird coincidences. Or maybe it isn't at all - even the WikiFur lists this without any citations. Should this be a subject to deletion? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet

There should be a category on furries and the internet.Tailsfan2 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

…what exactly would be in such a category? Sounds horribly vague. -- Kesh (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Like reference prominate furry communities. Talk about the furry haters in an NPOV way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.211.141 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's one fatal flaw in this request: where in the world would we find sources that satisfy WP:V? -- Kesh (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to just focus on furry fandom rather than giving the furry-haters the attention they so desperately crave. —Ochlophobia (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But the internet is important to the fandom and should be mentioned24.46.211.141 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, here and here. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this article describe a real phenomenon?

People who believe they are animals, people who have sex in fur suits, even people who fantasize sexually about the Rescue Rangers, an absurd slang with words like "scritching" and "yiffing"... to me, it seems too absurd to be true. I'm naturally lead to doubt everything I see or read through a screen, thus I'm led to doubt the existence of "furry fandom" as described in this article. To me, this seems the biggest troll that ever hit the internet, where people who "caught on" started photographing themselves in fur suits, inventing a nonexistent slang and stating to do things that are so stupid, so inane that nobody could logically believe... to deceive gullible people into believing that "furry fandom" exists, and laugh at them. If this is the case, this article would have no reason to exist (or at least it would need to be totally rewritten) because it would describe a nonexisting phenomenon. Devil Master (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clever, dude . . . I actually think you're the troll, not a real "phenomenon." 64.151.129.83 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering it's documented (see the article), I can't take your comments seriously. -- Kesh (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. That being said, Furry Fandom is sometimes fun, sometimes scary, but very real. Consider the citations, search Google if you must, then move along. - JeffJonez (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Furverts"

The article cites 'deviantdesires.com', which is a garden-variety porn site. Was the etymology of the word 'furvert' something that author Katharine Gates mentioned in her book Deviant Desires? If so, the article should refer to the book and its ISBN specifically. The Squicks (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey: How many furries would like to be completely human?

40% of all furries answer 'yes' to the question: "If you could be 0% human, would you?" Forgive me for editorializing for a second, but this is rather surprising. I would think that the truely hardcore furry fans would want to be like animals and have problem solving intelligence. To be 10% human like, for example, Balto.

Anyways, this survey result seems particularly notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on the psychology of the individual, I think, as well as the interpretation of the survey question. What does "0% human" mean? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are presuming that intelligence is the sole preserve of humanity, which is something that many furries (and science-fiction fans) would disagree with. Are Vulcans "10% human"? What about The Borg? Or Species 8472? Or orangutans? Or those who have undergone the physical and mental transformation surgery provided by Lapism? Balto is a hybrid of a Siberian Husky and an Arctic Wolf - are either of these 10% (or more) human? The survey is not really specific enough about what it means. I suspect what these fans wish is to be completely transformed into their conception of what a furry is, which may include both mental and physical characteristics - but that's just my reading of it. GreenReaper (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are presuming that intelligence is the sole preserve of humanity. That's not my opinion, that's objective scientific fact. Only humans have self-awareness through problem-solving intelligence. I do see your point about defining the term "0% human".

I interpret "0% human" to mean "100% animal", a wild animal with basic intelligence. So, Balto would not be 0% human since he can speak, use tools, reason, feel emotions, et cetera; he's not an 'animal'. If I had to pick a percentage... 10%? Somewhere 50%>x>0%. A generic anthro character-- Fox McCloud, Sabrina, Krystal, etc-- with all the basic physical and mental characteristics of a human and minor animal characteristics would be between 50-100%. This all seems self-evident to me, but you're right: the survey should have been more specific. The Squicks (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is your reference for this fact? Self-awareness is a different thing to problem solving. Many that you would call 100% animal can solve problems, and humans are not the only species to exhibit self-aware behavior either. Brain function is not so easily quantified as to put a percentage on it, nor does the ability to think intelligently seem to me to be part and parcel of what it means to be human.

Conversely, I'd say intelligence is part of what it means to be a person. Furry fandom is oriented around the idea of people who happen to be animals as well. Right now, non-human animals are not legally defined as people, but it'll be interesting to see where that is in fifty years or so. This is getting somewhat off-topic for the article, though. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Furry fandom is oriented around the idea of people who happen to be animals as well. The essential thing is that the survey asked people to place themselves on a left-right animal/human axis. So furries wanting to be both 100% human and 100% animal, as they interpret the percentages to mean, wouldn't be covered. So would 0%/0% furries. I agree with you that that's a serious problem with the survey.

But you could say the exact same thing about political spectrum polls. A very large group of Americans are simotaneously economically liberal and socially conservative-- the ideological opposite of libertarians. These people actually outnumber traditional conservatives by 16% to 15% according to the Pew Research Center. Libertarians, who have every reason to downplay the amount of them who exist, say that they outnumber standard conservatives by two to one. Despite this fact, nearly all American poltical polls use the boilerplate left-right axis. People who are both 100% liberal and 100% conservative have to pick a side.

Those polls are still added by editors to Wikipedia articles. Why can't we do the same thing in this article? The fact that 40% of furries answer 'yes' and 60% answer 'no' is as notable as all the other survey data that's in there right now.

So add it. You don't need anyone's blessing to do so - be bold! I do not disagree with the survey's notability, but I do suggest we avoid attempts to pin down exactly what furries meant when they chose "0% human", as it is a matter of our opinions (and so would be original research). We are safe if we simply repeat what the source said and let the reader interpret it.

It seems clear from the source that the researchers intended "human" to refer specifically to species. From page 20:

Is the furry the species he or she wants to be? If the furry says they would be 0% human
if possible, that is unattained because they are a human and have not reached their goal.
If the furry did not want to be 0% human, that is attained because to the objective
observer, they have attained this goal because they are a human.

The more I look at this, the more simplistic this division seems. One person could wish to be "90% human", another "10% human", and both would have attained their goal under these criteria (I doubt the one who chose 10% would really be happy). Still, I guess it matters little for the 0% group, which definitely are "unattained". GreenReaper (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need anyone's blessing to do so I know. The article ought to include both the results and the survey makers' interpretation of the results. It's just that I'm not sure how to word it; it could be problematic.

Still, I guess it matters little for the 0% group, which definitely are "unattained". I don't know about that. I personally would ideally like to be both 0% human and 0% animal. I would like to be Q (Star Trek). Being wedged into the same percentile as the otherkin and the babyfurs is very unpleasent. The Squicks (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, non-human animals are not legally defined as people, but it'll be interesting to see where that is in fifty years or so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some furries (the majority?) eat meat? The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and that is something that we will have to come to terms with. On the other hand, I don't know many furries who eat elephant, orangutan or dolphin meat, so it may not be much of a problem. In many furry stories, anthropomorphic characters eat meat; it is usually that of the relatively non-intelligent animals who lack personhood in their society. GreenReaper (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Furfag?

There have been numerous attempts to add mention of the term "furfag" to the article, many of them by vandals and trolls, but a couple of the recent attempts to add it were arguably good faith edits, which got me thinking about whether the term should be addressed in the article in some form or another. Despite being considered a derogatory term by most furry fans, it is perhaps in widespread enough usage to deserve mention in the article.

What do the rest of you think? --Mwalimu59 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue not. Chinese people doesn't describe the usage of "chink", Mexican American doesn't mention "wetback", etc. It's just not notable enough for an encyclopedia (unless in an article that describes derogatory terms, for example). -kotra (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that, lacking a reliable source, it is not a good idea to include it in the article. The prior redirect was speedily deleted. Wikipedia also has a policy on profanity. Of course, it has an article on WikiFur, but we have articles on lots of words. GreenReaper (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some very good points. The question seemed worth asking, but I agree that we've been handling it properly. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually in widespread usage? I understand it's used at some *chans and ED, but, having never been there, I've only encountered it in the trolling edits of this article and wikifur. --Cubbi (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is pretty widespread. *chan slang reaches its tentacles into every soft crevice of the Internet. It's still not notable enough for this article, though. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Furries and Zoophilia

I think this has gone on long enough. -- Kesh (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've had a look through this article, and other than the small survey results, there's nothing in the article talking about the links between furries and zoophilia. Considering that the sexually the large number of (sexual) furries connected with such places like beastforum, and the actual content of "yiff" or whatever, I believe this deserves a deeper look. However, this is probably going to be completly ignored. Wouldn't want to upset the cabal, would we? PretentiousNameHere (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not really aware of any such links, myself. However, since you appear to be a SME, it shouldn't be any trouble for you to find some reliable sources and write something up yourself, right? —Dajagr (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Ah yes, the WP:CABAL. Please. Anyway, just like any fandom, a small subsection have kinks of any variety. I've seen nothing that indicates furries are more likely to be into zoophilia than any other group, and I'd be shocked if you could find a reliable source either way. -- Kesh (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Every study on furries has indicated the overwhelming majority are not interested in zoophilia. The clumsy attempt to establish a link between the two based on users of a single message board sounds like original research based on faulty reasoning. —Ochlophobia (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (For the next passage, "Furry" will refer to those who are sexually active in some way in the community) Surveys cannot tell us the truth about a subsection of people, only how they want themselves to be percieved. There is heaps and heaps of evidence that suggests many members of the furry "fandom" are in the closet about various other sexual fetishes. How do I put this...If you had taken a cross-section of people from 60 years ago and asked about their sexuality, an exceptionally large percentage would describe themselves as straight. In modern times, repeating such a survey would have drasticly different results. Why is this? Is it because homosexuality has suddenly had a massive surge, or because people are more accepting about these things nowerdays? What I'm trying to say is that many members of the furry fandom are still closeted about a lot of what they to, due to persecution. Or look at it from another POV. Furries are sexually attracted to animal characteristics. If they wern't, why do they "yiff"? PretentiousNameHere (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) As noted by Dajagr, you are welcome to present a reliable source which makes such assertions, otherwise they constitute original research. However, I think there is a clear difference between fictional intelligent people who happen to have animal characteristics and real-life animals who are not considered to have such intelligence, or the ability to give reasoned consent. Your suggestion is equivalent to saying that the average straight man would consider a physically attractive woman in a permanent vegetative state (or, perhaps, with profound mental retardation) an acceptable sex partner. Personally, I'd find that rather a turn-off. GreenReaper (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) There is of course the age-old dilemma that if one is accused of hiding something when in actuality they don't have it, how would they prove you don't have what they're accused of hiding. It's the same with furry fans who say they aren't in it for the adult stuff. If you want to believe that all (or most) of the people who answered the surveys and said so are hiding something, I doubt anything we could say here would convince you otherwise. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I don't have any reliable sources as such, just personal observetions. However, I did find this lovely little tidbit: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῶον (zṓon, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to an animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage and frequently but incorrectly seen as a synonym; often misspelled as "beastiality"), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoophilia — which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexual activity for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles;[1] and not all zoophiles perform zoosexual acts." As per WP:How many legs does a horse have? PretentiousNameHere (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC) That tidbit sounds like a pretty accurate description of zoophilia. It also says nothing whatsoever about furries of furry fandom. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC) What does this have to do with Furry fandom? If you have a problem with the wording used on Zoophilia, feel free to bring it up on Talk:Zoophilia. -kotra (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC) The thing often missed in the controversy of does Furry equate to zoophilia is that Furry characters are not animals. The anthropomorphic characters most often sexualized are humans or humanoids with added animal attributes. An analysis of the art would show that it is human attributes that Furries find most attractive. There would only be a question of zoophilia if you had art sexualizing natural looking animals (4 footed furries.) And even then, you'd need a human looking character having sex with a natural looking animal for it to constitute a depiction of zoophilia. The rarity of such drawings in the community would seem to indicate that zoophilia is anything but a popular idea in the fandom. What you actually have here as a main focus is attractive, exotic and alluring animal based alien life forms. Which, just like all attractive humanoid ALF's in science fiction, tend to be sexually attractive, appealing to people who are attracted to exotic humans, not animals. Perri Rhoades (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) You may be right, but let's keep the discussion on the article and what can be done to improve it. -kotra (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Firstly, WP:SELFPUB gives Carte Blanche for original research/self published material as long as it is sourced properly and doesn't affect too much of the article. Secondly, Perri Rhoades is begging the question. If you can't read the quoted text above, Zoophilia doesn't need to depict a human screwing an animal, just sexually suggestive material. By your logic, we could say that pretty much everything Playboy/Hustler publishes isn't porn because there's no actual sex. Next, we can see that on some level, furries are attracted to animals. This may not be a conscious level, but it's there. Why? Well, let's break it down. You are human. A furry is a human with animal characteristics, thus, it is different from humans. Thus, you could say that you enjoy the animal characteristics when applied to humans. Thus, you have a sexual fascination with animal characteristics, which is zoophilia. You see where I'm coming from now? PretentiousNameHere (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) That would be assuming quite a lot. There seems to be precisely zero material on the net on the subject of animal-attraction within furry fandom, and if anyone happens to know of such, please, be bold and add some to the article. For the time being, let's keep personal guesses outside of the wiki. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) From what I see, you're stretching credibility to the breaking point. A does not necessarily lead to B or to C in this case. You're making a faulty assumption here. -- Kesh (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I think the idea that WP:SELFPUB gives Carte Blanche to add non-notable, contentious, and unrelated original research to the article is laughable. Wikipedia is not a forum for exploring such half-baked theories.—Ochlophobia (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You're right. Think about it: furries masturbate not to humans, but to humanoid animals. If they masturbated solely to humans, they wouldn't be zoophiles. You'll notice that your detractors are furries, this is because zoophilia is viewed as even more disgusting in Western society than fursuits/furry porn/yiffy/etc. So it's important to ignore their personal bias and include the facts. If the zoophilia article could be modified to include the spectrum of person who are sexually attracted to fantasy animals (such as humanoid animals), that would improve our understanding of furry sexual desires.--Nationalism (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC) WP:TRUTH much? No, not happening. Encyclopaedia is a summary and collection citations, not personal opinions. There is nothing to suggest that all or some furries are attracted to any kind of animal, including humanoid ones. If you find such sources, feel free to modify the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) A cursory google search finds some results to prove my point: (NWS)http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Squibb-Squirrel/Erotic%20Themes/2005-08-09giraffe1.gif --Nationalism (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Ew. But that's still an anthropomorphic animal, google search results still don't qualify as a reliable source, and it still has nothing to do with human/animal attraction (per definition of zoophilia). A reliable source would be an established publication, site or survey (what have you) suggesting that some furries are attracted to animals. So far there appear to be none. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

In response to a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I've currently semi-protected this page. Because the page was previously move-protected, I have not set any automated expiry time for this current protection. The requesting user asked for indefinite semi-protection, but I figured it couldn't hurt to solicit some input, there. Would appreciate some comments or thoughts as to whether/when protection should expire, here, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Semi-protection at Furry fandom (now archived). Thanks for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what needs to be done?

This was a Good Article nominee once, but, apparently, did not pass the mark. Is this still true? If so, then what needs to be done to reassure quality: is there set amount of illustrations, references, citations, wording or wordcount to be met? The items in Good Article or to-do list just seem to be vague enough to appear to already be met. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 7#GA Fail for the reasoning. -- Kesh (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll reiterate it here to close the issue:

"It's close, but there are still unsourced statements here and a few weasel worded phrases. On top of that, you're using WikiFur as a source, as well as other sources which are of questionable reliability. You can renominate it once these concerns have been addressed, and get another user to look at the article." h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is always going to be harder to make an article like this into a "good" article, if only because there is more to cover. The topic as a whole is more controversial than individual subjects within it. One point that I think needs addressing is that the surveys are bulleted lists of facts, and both are under the sexuality section, while both surveys cover far more than sexuality. Perhaps these would be better addressed with a demographics section which draws on both of these, with sexuality as one of its the sub-sections? Looking at GA passes fursuit and furry convention might help. GreenReaper (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What could be done? I put my thoughts on that question on my talk page, so as not to annoy any of the folks here who have grown weary of my long-windedness. Perri Rhoades (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Furries

Articles on homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. have sections for the organized groups that oppose them. There are several websites dedicated to exposing furries, and they should be in the article just as there are websites that are pro-furry in the article.--Nationalism (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "anti-furry" sites I've seen have been joke/parody sites, but if you know of some that would pass muster under WP:EL and WP:RS feel free to add them. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Feel free to mention them on the talk page, and we can discuss adding them. Sections on "anti-furries" have been removed in the past owing to a lack of sources; the mere existence of these sites doesn't necessarily make them notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some sites listed on your website: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-furries --Nationalism (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your website"? I think you're confused. :) That said, we need sites that suit Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. If you'd like to point out some candidates, we can work from there. -- Kesh (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good faith... But... I don't see a single way in which doing this would benefit the article, or why it should be mentioned at all. It just seems about as sensible as adding a mention of West Bro Baptists Church to Homosexuality or War in Iraq article.

I don't think the article on homosexuality, knitting or, closer to home, Trekkies include links to any "Anti" sites, and for a good reason - it's irrelevant to the subject. Or, as someone else stated, just not notable enough: the term "anti-furry" gives only roughly 9,000 hits on Google. "Furry" itself gets over 16,000,000 hits, and we can't find much reliable sources for the article still.

Furthermore, as your WikiFur reference, and as brief google search clearly state, a few "anti-furry" sites that do exist are not dedicated to distaste (?) of the fandom as such, but rather general trolling - and there's absolutely no merit in bringing up deliberately untrue references on the Wiki. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

this article/sexual aspect of furryism

this page seems to totally unfocus on the true aspect of furryism, a homosexual fetish of having sex in animal costumes. this has barely even been inferred upon in the article. either a new subsection needs to be made or maybe a seperate article(Furry_(sexual_fetish). For god's sake, the Encyclopedia Dramatica for Furry is more accurate than this wikipedia article. this page is truely a disgrace to wikipedia's standards. Im not denying that there are non-sexual furries, but the vast majority arent. I was expecting to click on this article's talk page to see a multitude of users saying this article needs to be completely re-written, but instead i see people posting and linking to WikiFur? WTF! what happened to wikipedia, wikipedia is supposed to represtent a TRUE, NEUTRAL and UNBIASED view of all information. This page should be marked for deletion. Taint3dmem0riez6 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't laugh so hard for quite a while now. Thank you, good sir. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, what is your basis for the claim that furry fandom is mostly "a homosexual fetish of having sex in animal costumes"? If you have references to back up that claim, feel free to add them and modify the article accordingly. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The study on furry sexuality on the furry page shows that only 1/3 of furries are straight. Additionally, almost all furries either masturbate to furry animals or have sex in furry costumes, usually both. --Nationalism (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm....Encyclopedia Dramatica is a satirical, dark humor, sexually-intense, anonymous-influenced website that takes the Internet too seriously by any means! The disgrace god-awful furry article on the Encyclopedia Dramatica's users are not anti-furry and most of the admins themselves are furries. But the article may make fun of and disinformation of the furry fandom with half-truths. It may offend and give the furry fandom a bad name with that stupid article made by many immature anonymous bastards. I actually "Hate" Encyclopedia Dramatica. This article should not ever be deleted!! WikiFur is a friendly neutral furry supporter community and helps the Furry Fandom with good reputation and sympathizing to get off the furry fandom's bad side. The furry fandom is not always a sexual fetish filled with homosexuals, consider researching a bit more. The Furry article in Dramatica is not that accurate. I can't stand the article at all. This furry fandom article on Wikipedia is good enough, but it needs more information and references to improve it. We're not gonna mess up the article with satirical misinformation disinformation to this article. Dont' be ignorant about it. No more negativity please! The hate and ridicule must be stopped! --SilverWerewolf (talk) 3:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but you masturbate to animals--Nationalism (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Three strikes: WP:ATTACK, WP:FORUM, WP:CIVILITY.

Don't feed the trolls. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Users will get banned or suspended from their accounts if they use vandalism, personal attacks, and disobeying Wikipedia guideline standards. The Furry Fandom article will still be protected from trolls, haters, and attackers. Any user or non-user might have their IP address banned. Any vandalism to this article will be reverted. Please keep it clean! Thank you. --SilverWerewolf (talk) 25:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Types of Furries

I think there should be some description of the various types of furries, such as the furries that want to fuck pregnant humanoid animals, the furries that want to fuck humanoid animals that wear diapers, etc. I don't really know where one would find sources about these people, but I've seen some really crazy stuff on the internet so I think there must be some kind of documentation of the types furry sexuality.--Nationalism (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the name of existing sexual fetish applies in this case, whatever it is. How is this relevant to the article? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Nationalism is continuing his trolling behavior here. This is a non-starter. -- Kesh (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite obviously. Still, not a reason to disregard the five pillars... Does Wiki have a report button or something?.. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV and WP:AN would probably be the closest to that. -- Kesh (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This doesn't seem to deserve a proper discussion this time, for apparent reasons. If anyone has any valid points on the matter, please, feel free to add such. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)