Talk:Furry fandom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeFurry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Furry fandom:

  • Fix remaining issues highlighted in the good article review
  • Check references for suitability and consideration of bias in use (both positive and negative)
  • Obtain more high-quality images that represent the fandom, in particular its artwork
  • General polishing consistent with increased positioning in Wikipedia's article grading scheme and perfect article criteria
  • Create a section about "fursonas", as this is a highly important part of the fandom.
  • Archive/refactor talk page

New RS, for those interested.[edit]

FYI:

Soh, D. W., & Cantor, J. M. (2015). A peek inside a furry convention. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1–2. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0423-y

I am happy to supply reprints to anyone interested.— James Cantor (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a peer-reviewed academic paper, but a "letter to the editor." Although published in a scientific journal, it is no different than any convention-goer's personal impressions. Summary:
"Furnal Equinox" is the largest furry convention in Canada, with 910 attendees and 265 fursuiters in 2014. Arts, crafts, clothes, costumes, and accessories are sold, erotic or otherwise. Most[quantify] furries collect erotic and non-erotic furry art. The convention is LGBT-friendly. At the 2014 convention, some[quantify] of the furries reported sexual interest in furries, others did not. Some[quantify] of the furries were wary of the general public's perception of the furry fandom.
Furry-friend (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
That is correct; the cite is a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. Being a letter does not rule it out as an RS, however:
  • WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
  • WP:USERG: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
— James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising[edit]

I think you might've just forgotten one of the most important parts of being a furry! Us furries raise over 1,000 dollars every year(we usually raise a couple thousand)! 75.112.193.68 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The connection to the mythological concept of human-animal hybrids? This article, and that one.[edit]

To what extent should this article cover the general concept of human-animal hybrids, going back to Greek-Roman-Egyptian-etc mythology and related topics? Or should it even mention it at all? I've seen a few references here and there about how some 'furries' refer to Pan, Anubis, Pazuzu, etc as inspiration. But, even though it seems like there's a logical progression here (Human culture has evolved: Mythological bunny-human deities -> Folklore tales of bunny-human beings -> Brer Rabbit and other such beings in recorded media -> Bunny kemono animated beings and bunny furry online characters, etc) I still find it confusing given that the whole modern 'furry fandom' pretty much popped up into being in the 1980s without much in the way of earlier connections. What do you guys think?

The flip side is whether or not there should be a section on the 'furry fandom' in the human animal hybrid page, since right now there's nothing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The extent to which such info should be in the article is the extent to which there are reliable sources which support that information, and the extent to which it's generally accepted by the academic community, per WP:WEIGHT, so it's impossible to answer hypothetically. BMK (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You might have been a little more straightforward and mentioned that you just wrote the human-animal hybrid article. BMK (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You should cover most of the topic Angel Dragons (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Questionable terminology in 'Sexual aspects' section.[edit]

Okay, in the 'Sexual aspects' section, there's a claim that furries (generally speaking) have a slight preference for pornographic artwork. Directly preceding that is a statement that only 30 per cent of women preferred pornographic artwork.

This statement is therefore misleading in a rather sexist way as it disregards an entire gender. It also slants the article with a bias as it's contradictory to the preceding statements. Even using an average between the men and the women, considering that only 0.9 per cent of men prefer pornographic artwork, the average with both genders considered would show that there's less of an overall preference for pornography; Not more.

As such, to correctly put it, it should be said that furry men/males have a slight preference for pornography. However, since this is stated directly preceding this line, I don't think it's even necessary to keep. What I'm getting at is that the 0.9 per cent preference among men is used to fallaciously justify a statement that furries (in general) have a slight preference for porn.

This is, as I said, misleading and/or sexist. It's demeaning to an entire gender to not be counted.

I think it's only there to add bias to the article, it's axe grinding.

As such, from the perspective of being professional (Wikipedia isn't TVTropes), I would recommend that the line in question be edited or removed. Even in its protected state, this article is such a target for vandalism. (77.107.172.208 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC))


I just checked the claimed inconsistency. The critized part is: "… males estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic, compared with 30.7% female. Furries have a slight preference for pornographic furry artwork over non-pornographic artwork." The data comes from the given reference "International Anthropomorphic Research Project: Furry Fiesta 2013 Summary" which you can find at IARP's website. For those authorized, please add the link to the reference. The first sentence correctly cites the referred data. The second seems to be the result of a misinterpretation of the following sentence: "The figure below shows that male furries were estimated to have a more positive attitude toward furry pornography than female furries, though, in general, both were predicted by participants to hold relatively positive views toward pornography." The sentence in question ("Furries have …") therefore has to be removed.

As I'm already checking the referred sources, there's another (intentionally?) poorly worded sentence, which sounds very negative: "A portion of the fandom is sexually interested in zoophilia (sex with animals), although a majority take a negative stance towards it." The referenced paper states: "Its [zoophilia] practitioners draw a distinction between zoophilia (love of/attraction to animals) and bestiality (sexual gratification derived from animals), […]. This distinction does not appear to be one commonly recognised in […] the furry fandom. " and "Overall 17.1% of furries identified as zoophiles". In my opinion the sentence in question has to be changed to: "According to an anonymous survey of 2008 17.1% of furries identify as zoophiles, compared to est. 10% of the general population, although not clear if the interviewee by zoophilia meant love of/attraction to animals or sexual gratification derived from animals (bestiality) as the distinction is not commonly recognised." --Dexter3player (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015[edit]

I want to know about the templates of the bibliography so I could add reliable references to an article about ' Yiff'in Spanish. Sonderflux (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit requests are not the place to ask questions about Wikipedia. Your question is better suited at the Teahouse. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite Full Protection please?[edit]

Create indefinite full protection: Nakon, request staff that template/article is considered high-risk, make it full protection whatsoever, change from indefinite semi-protection to full-protection. 112.209.86.65 (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Declined. Please actually read our protection policy. --NeilN talk to me 06:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TapestriesMUCK[edit]

Why has the TapestriesMUCK article been deleted, and why does it redirect here? TapestriesMUCK has enough grounds to be its own article and while "furry-centric" it could be redirected to a number of better articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.245.95 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ask the admin who deleted it. BMK (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This person's thesis may be of interest[edit]

Found this on the furry subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/furry/comments/45f356/my_furry_phd/

It might make a good source to cite for some new information once it's complete. Imma keep an eye on this. SarrCat ∑;3 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add FurrTrax as another popular Furry Site in the examples[edit]

FurrTrax has nearly 16,000 members in 2.5 years of service, providing a full featured social networking and collaboration site. https://furrtrax.com

I would only add such a link if you had a good citation to provide... SarrCat ∑;3 09:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016[edit]

There is some wrong info, may i fix it. 47.20.18.198 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the particular info that you would like to correct? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality of sources[edit]

User:Piotrus: the source you tagged as unreliable is written by a Dr Mark Griffiths, professor of psychology, who has been recognized for his excellence in his field by several national and academic institutions. The citation is used to show that "the older lower results, which are even lower than estimated in the general population, were due to the methodology of questioning respondents face-to-face which led to social desirability bias." Since one other source makes that claim, and since Dr Griffiths is a fairly well-respected professor of psychology, I think his determination (that the methodology of the first study led to social desirability bias) is reliable in this context, despite coming from a blog. The policy Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions says: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." This is obviously the case here.

User:Beyond My Ken: The studies section does not primarily deal with social psychology. Some of the studies lightly touch the subject of social psychology. For example one study notes, "the more interesting question, from a social psychological perspective, is whether there is an anticipated change in this gender proportion over time." This is one aspect of the study that has to do with social psychology (other people's imagined or implied influence on an individual's psychology). The majority of the studies only address sociological issues (for example demographics and other statistics).

Additionally, the "sexual aspects" section cites better scientific sources than the "sociological studies" section (which mostly cites surveys published on the internet). Saying it doesn't belong in the "studies" section because two (out of twelve) references are The Times and Pittsburgh City Paper is misleading, especially when these sources can easily be removed without affecting the section's verifiability at all. Furry-friend (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree we can untag the blog by Mark_D._Griffiths, as a blog written by academic can be considered reliable (particularly on uncontroversial issues), barring any criticism of his blog/person, which hasn't been shown. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: POV edits[edit]

User:Beyond My Ken is pushing some absurd notion that these are POV edits, when three don't change a single word, one removes an "unreliable source" notice since the source is an expert in the field of the cited claim, one corrects BMK's false (and non-consensus) edit that "sociological studies" needs to be "social psychology studies", and another that corrects a claim that's not in its provided citation. Furry-friend (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The POV edits are that you wish to combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones, to the benefit of the furry community's standing. This is POV editing. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the structure of the article as it is, and the only reason I can figure outfor it is that you wish to make this merge because it looks good for the furries. Well, I have no positive or negative feelings about them, but I I know a thing or two about article layout, and about editors who push a POV. BMK (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Three of the edits you reverted have nothing to do with scientific or non-scientific reports. Let's start with putting them back because they have nothing do to with your complaint of POV-pushing. Furry-friend (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, it's funny you're accusing me of pro-furry-POV-pushing because when I first started cleaning up this article and providing scientific citations, I was accused of anti-furry-POV-pushing. But again, this has nothing to do with three of the five edits you reverted, and they should be restored. Furry-friend (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It appears that another editor agrees with me, and disagrees with you. That means that, so far at least, the consensus is that you changes should not remain. BMK (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
First, that's not how consensus works, it's not a vote or majority rule. Second, which of these three edits is a POV edit?
  • 1 - removing "unreliable source" notice from a reliable source
  • 2 - changing "according to many" to "many" because it's according to one
  • 3 - moving a sentence from the middle of a paragraph to the beginning of a paragraph
Furry-friend (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I've waited months for a discussion. Please reply. Furry-friend (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There has already been a discussion above. Sinply because you don't like the result doesn't invalidate it. BMK (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and please don't ping me again. BMK (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
BMK this has not been discussed above which is why I'm pinging you. You reverted these edits because they are "POV edits". How and why? There is no "result", there is just you saying "this is POV". How are these three edits POV edits? This is the discussion part of WP:BRD. Furry-friend (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"you wish to combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones, to the benefit of the furry community's standing" - not a single one of these edits combines non-scientific reports with scientific ones. Unless you can provide a valid reason, it seems like you reverted these edits on a whim. Furry-friend (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again, in bold capital letters. DO NOT PING ME AGAIN. Let me add, do not come to my talk page and post unless Wiliupedia policy requires you to do so. (And, yes, I am allowed to do that.)
Now, you've been here for 5 years, you have 222 edits overall, 113 of which are to articles. Of those 113, 54 (48%) are to "Furry fandom". That doesn't quite make you a SPA. but it brings you awfully close to SPA territory. Now, if you think your 222 edits over 5 years have given you have a better understanding of concepts like "consensus" and "edit-warring" than I've gotten, with over 190,000,000 edits over almost 11 years, then you must be exceedingly intelligent and perceptive, and your attraction to My Little Pony (22 edits) must be sn of aberration of some kind.
The truth is, you're not very clear on any of these concepts, and your concentration on Furry fandom points to you as being a COI/POV editor, something that will be taken care of in the future if you don't bone up a bit on policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING. In the meantime, this subject has been discussed and dismissed, and if you continue to attempt to re-insert it against a clear talk page consensus, the only editor who's going to be in dutch over it is you. Now, please find something else to do - maybe there's some hot news in the My Little Pony world that needs dealing with. BMK (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
BMK, this has not been discussed. You are deliberately avoiding discussing it. Can you answer which of these three edits are POV edits without resorting to personally attacking me? I have literally waited months for your replies and now that I finally have you here, you're avoiding discussion on your revert. You reverted these three edits (and two others) because you say they're "POV edits". Two of them I'm leaving aside for now. The other three, how and why are they POV edits? If I don't ping you you won't reply, and simply enforce your version of the article by a pocket veto. Furry-friend (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If you ping me one more time I will approach an admin, or post on a noticeboard, about your behavior. There will be bo additional discussion from me about a topic which has already been discussed and a consensus formed. BMK (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You are deliberately avoiding discussion. Taking this to the admin noticeboard (not pinging you or notifying you on your talk page). Furry-friend (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the discussion has been completed, is over, done, finished, wrapped up, tied in a bundle, ready for sale, no longer active, kaput, has bought the big one and is ready to meet its maker. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires that discussions continue ad infinitum, and since there's a consensus above, on this page, there's no more need for discussion. Le débat est terminé, das Reden ist beendet, Обсуждение несуществующей. Capesh? BMK (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus above. These three edits have never been discussed. 15:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not ad-infinitum. You gave an edit summary of "POV edits" and I'm asking you to explain how these three edits are POV edits. It would have taken far less time if you'd have just explained that instead of repeatedly avoided that by personally attacking me and assigning ulterior motives to these edits. How are these edits POV edits? Furry-friend (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with FF regarding the unanswered questions. I do see other editors here are nearly bullying him, avoiding his question and instead using personal attacks (discussing him instead of the edits) and suggesting admin intervention (which, if needed, should be to remind some of you about AGF, NPA, etc.). There is no policy that justifies discussing his person - he is NOT a SPA (which, btw, in itself is not an offense here), and as long as he is not shown to edit for $$$, his POV is no different from that of many other editors editing various topics on which they are biased (don't get me started on the idiocy of singling out paid editors and ignoring, let's say, religious ones who are allowed to edit religion articles, and so on...). Anyway, if we are to look for problematic edits, here is one - a revert of FF by an editor who has never edited this page or commented here before. If we want to throw CAPITALS around, I would consider thinking about WP:MEATPUPPETtry, perhaps.
Anyway, reviewing [1]. First, I support FF version of "Many furry fans had their first", I see no need to attribute this to "According to many furry fans", through it would be better to say some rather then many. That said, I do not think this interview is helpful at all, it is not a scientific study, but a short interview with no analysis, published in "Ann Arbor Paper" (?) which does not seem to be a correct name of whatever low quality source it is. Rather then fighting about the wording here, I'd strongly suggest removing this source; generalizing from a few interviews (WP:PRIMARY) is simply not a way to write an article. I would also suggest moving " Social science studies" higher then the "Sexual aspects", which is frankly a controversy-magnet, and as a perennial problematic section should be lower rather then higher. Regarding the studies section title, as I explained in my edit summary, social science should be reasonable compromise, let's move on. Frankly, it seems this is a storm in the teacup, what is it that is being fought over here? Sadly, my conclusion is that the fight here is not about the article, but about some editors dislike for another, whose only fault seems to be to have declared (through his username) that he may have a POV here. Great way to discourage people from announcing their POV/COI, guys. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

Why are gay and bi young males massively over-represented among furries? Jim Michael (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is not for general discussion of the subject matter, but for discssions about how the article can be improved. If your statement is true, present some evidence of it, and then some sources that explain the reasons behind it. Then, write it up and add it to the article -- if Furry-friend will let you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be attempting to disrupt editing on this talk page or article through incivility, for which you have been warned time and again. Furry-friend (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly stated and sourced in the article that what I've said is true. I'm not generally discussing the article. I'm saying that the reasons for these demographics should be added to the article. I don't know of any reliable sources that explain it, so I'm suggesting that someone else add the needed info and a source to back it. It can't be coincidence that the vast majority are young, the large majority are male and the majority are gay or bi. There must be reasons, but I can't figure out why most would lose interest in it by age 30, why males outnumber females by 5 to 1 or 6 to 1, or why gays and bisexuals are over-represented by a factor of about ten. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In cases like this, where the demographics themselves are often relatively easy to measure and document in reliable sources, the reasons for those numbers can be a lot harder to assess and are likely to be much more speculative, which would mean there might not be reliable sources for them. Quite possibly the main reason there are fewer people over 30 might not be because people tend to leave the fandom above that age (which may not even be true), but because much of the growth in the fandom has been among those under 25. Also, anecdotally speaking, furry fandom was even more male-dominated in its early days, with 90-95% of attendees being male at conventions in the early 1990s, whereas today that figure is almost certainly below 75%. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the large majority enter into this subculture before 25, but that doesn't explain why few are still involved in it by 30, as it's not a very new phenomenon - it's been popular since the 90s. It also doesn't explain the lack of new furry fans over 30. What are the reasons for so many ceasing their interest in it after relatively few years? What's the reason for it predominantly attracting gay/bi males? I don't see what the connection would be. When I first heard of this, the true demographics of it never occurred to me. I thought that it would attract a wide demographic. It was only when I saw a documentary about it that I noticed, when they took the heads of their costumes off, that most of them were young men. Only later still did it become apparent that gays and bisexuals were massively over-represented. These demographics aren't a coincidence - there must be reasons that it attracts mostly young people, far more males than females - and gay and bi people to a factor of about 10. The article isn't complete without this info and I would have thought that the community would know why. Jim Michael (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

International Journal of Psychological Studies[edit]

The article currently cites this journal which is published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education which doesn't exactly have the best of reputations. Can we find an alternative source foe the claim "The most popular fursona species include wolves, foxes, dogs, large felines, and dragons".©Geni (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerbasi is actually one of the more prominent researches in the furry sociology field. I personally believe her research is heavily skewed in favor of the furry fandom, putting the core behaviors of the furry fandom in a more socially desirable light and minimizing exposure if its taboo aspects, but she is probably the person with the most experience and data in this very esoteric field. Considering the size of the furry community, it's unlikely that many more researchers will choose to study it, and we have to "settle" for what's currently available. Even far more prominent subcultures, like sports fans, have relatively little research published about them. Furry-friend (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate sources for the public perception and media coverage section[edit]

Sources on the "media coverage" section should be third-party sources that talk about media coverage or public perception. For example Meinzer is a source about media coverage and public perception ("[...] despite their wild image from Vanity Fair, MTV and CSI [...]"), while Ferreras is used as a primary source about its own media coverage. There should be secondary sources that evaluate and interpret the primary coverage, instead of doing that directly on the Wikipedia article. Furry-friend (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight - politics[edit]

As the single source for the politics section says, the majority of furries are liberal; this is also backed by the FurScience research which finds furries more liberal than the general population. Dedicating an entire section for alt-right furries when they are the minority is undue weight. Furry-friend (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rick Griffin's work- Edit request[edit]

So there's this author named Rick Griffin whose webcomic, "Housepets!", has won the Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip from 2007 to 2015. Could this be added in the webcomic section?

Also, if you're looking for ARTWORK to add, he's a good one to look at. his website's here: rickgriffinstudios.com

That One Guy (See Below) 2/3/17That One Guy (see below) (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there is currently no article for Housepets!, nor for the Ursa Major Awards, this would probably not be very informative to readers. There are a lot of works in Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters, but we need reliable, independent sources to determine which should be mentioned. If there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources, you could consider writing the article first.
Wikipedia has very strict rules about how images are used, and images taken from the web are almost never usable for legal and philosophical reasons. Wikipedia:Image use policy has the details. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

NO MERGE
(non-admin closure) Merger unanimously opposed. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that fursuit be merged into furry fandom. The content of the fursuit article can easily be explained in the context of the furry fandom, and the furry fandom article is of a reasonable size that the merging of fursuit will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The merge will not be verbatim, it will only incorporate the properly cited information. Furry-friend (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fur suits" are not the same as "fursuits", per the references in the article. They have a very specific meaning directly tied to the furry fandom. Furry-friend (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Like the other two votes, there exists fursuits outside the fandom. Proper sources would be needed to back this up, though. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are enough articles to make fursuits independently notable, regardless of whether the term only applies to furries or not. Plenty of news articles specifically mention fursuits. [2] [3] [4]Rar91 (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference vandalism[edit]

@Furry-friend and Rockclaw1030: I'd like to open this discussion between the two of you to resolve the dispute over the usage of certain references in this article. IMHO, I would not use the first removed reference to describe the fandom, as it talks mostly about the chlorine incident at Midwest FurFest 2014. I have no opinion in regards to the other references in question. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The second citation is circular sourcing to Wikipedia (Wikipedia → print copy of Wikipedia → Wikipedia). Furry-friend (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Both references have nothing to do with the information preceding them. If we assume good faith they are irrelevant and should be removed, regardless of the author's intent. A cursory glance at Rocklaw1030's contribution history leads me to believe that they routinely plant irrelevant unformatted "citations", which is why I would not assume good faith in this case. Good faith or not, they need to be removed. Furry-friend (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll have you know ,Furry-friend, that I do not "routinely plant irrelevant unformatted "citations"" None of my citations are irrelevant, and if they are unformatted, I am sorry. I just copy the url. But I never vandalize. The pertinent information is always in the site cited. You may not know this, but I am a furry myself, and I love they furry fandom. The paragraph in the article from http://www.mcac.maryland.gov was as follows: "The hotel was hosting the Midwest FurFest, a convention where many attendees don animal costumes and "celebrate furry fandom, that is, art, literature and performance based around anthropomorphic animals," according to the event's website." If you agree that is not good enough, then I won't put it back. But do not post libel things about me.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Both that reference and the circular source were tangentially related to the furry fandom, and since your contribution history is filled with adding frivolous references your actions appear as vandalism. Stop adding bare URL references and stop adding references just because they mention the topic. A reference should discuss the topic, it shouldn't just cursorily mention it. Referencing furry activities to an article about a violent incident because it contains one sentence about furry activities has all the appearances of vandalism. Furry-friend (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, the latest reference you added kind of dances around the topic of sex; "While furry-themed pornography does exist, the furry fandom is not defined around this fact" and "The high proportion of LGBTQ members of the furry fandom (relative to the general population) is likely a product of several factors, including the fandom's origins and its norms of openness and inclusiveness"; those same norms create a high proportion of sexual fetish activity. The doctor is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He mentions sports fans and car fans, but you won't find over 50% of sports and car fans with a preference toward porn-related sports and cars media. A sports fan will primarily consume sports games and sports celebrity related content; a furry fan, on average, consumes predominantly porn. I believe comparing this data (published by the doctor in the interview) to similar data from the sports and car fandom will show just how much the furry fandom is skewed towards sex. Furry-friend (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think that argument would work with anime fans as well? Just curious. --Conti| 12:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sexualization is institutionalized in the anime and manga fandom in ways that are unparalleled in other fandoms. Maybe the best parallel is the film industry, which has an entire industry arm dedicated to sex. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any studies of film buffs as their own subculture. These are all very hairy topics that need a lot of research. With the current state of social sciences these questions may go unanswered for a long, long time. At the very least, Wikipedia articles should avoid isolated studies until further research is made. Furry-friend (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Furry fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable persons[edit]

As much as possible, please incorporate wikilinks to "notable persons" into the prose of the article. Placing them in a list provides no context for the reader, and creates false balance between the persons named: a minor artist is placed next to the most significant historian of the fandom. It's like having a list of Americans and putting George McGovern next to George O'Hanlon. Furry-friend (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for new data to be added[edit]

Under Sexual aspects -- the data is from a 2011 study from UCLA.

If we cite Adjective Species, an independant source for surveying furries worldwide, you can see that data has significantly changed since 2011.

Is it worth including this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkmaneArweinydd (talkcontribs) 10:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018[edit]

~~i would like to add more information about furry's for i feel like the information above does not provide enough information.~~
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Ling and its impact on this article[edit]

Concerning the upcoming This Is Life with Lisa Ling episode featuring furries, I'm curious as to whether it, in some way, can be used as a source for anything that isn't already in the article. There's also a CNN article that can be used otherwise/as well (I just wanted to confirm the reliability of such documentary-style series before adding this link as a refidea above). Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald156 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

On the mention of "scritching"[edit]

This article makes mention of "scritching" in the Role-playing section as a common activity. The source cited for it is a BBC article which provides no examples of it occurring, nor any testimonies from furries, or studies by professionals relevant to the topic, or statistics, or anything else that would confirm the activity existing in the fandom in the first place, let alone being common. The quotes in the source don't mention the term at all, only the author of the BBC article does so.

Some popular furries on YouTube have also denounced it as it would be harmful to a fursuit's longevity, so if it does happen, it is without a fursuit (the section mentions that fursuits are "used to enhance the experience"). I suggest removing the term from the section in question until a reliable source with evidenced claims can be found to replace the BBC article sourced for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaGarg (talkcontribs) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done plus the whole paragraph as the same can be said for the other activities. I will, however, leave this thread open for further discussion if necessary. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"Scritching" wasn't about fursuits, it was was always a role-play thing. That said, without a reliable source, we can't really add that, and all I have is personal experience in the fandom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Furry fandom for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Furry fandom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Furry fandom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 07:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)