Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Listed examples

Does anyone else find it problematic including 'the secret of NIMH' and 'watership down' as media that are seen as furry-related? Even the 'redwall' series is debatable, because by the same logic the 'narnia' series should be here, along with 'wind in the willows' ... it has to be acknowledged that for something to be "furry" it is more than just anthropomorphic animals because none of the above examples are "furries".

There was a link to this page in the article at one time. It appears to have been removed. Probably because it's an Amazon page. It should have been replaced with a link to the official Ursa Major Awards site. Anyway, this explains very clearly the genre in question. Dr. Righteous 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Furry in Media

CSI New York: Episode 406: Fur and Loathing. Original Airdate: October 30, 2003. I am looking to download just this and watch it. Now I have to either download 8 gigs of season four. Or else to buy an entire CD of the season. Maybe I could rent it, but I prefer to save money. I'm planning on critiquing it after viewing it. Arights 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You might find the links at the WikiFur article on CSI useful. GreenReaper 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting this on the talk page. What I say may never belong in an article, but I'm putting it here as reference material. Anyone can copy this to wikifur if they want.
  • MTV -- Pretty much focused entirely on sex in furry fandom, emphasized male homosexuality. It had Yote (the main furry) tell his mother about being furry in the same way as a gay male tells his mother he is homosexual.
  • ER -- It has one furry who is generally normal, except that he is quick to punch people. The second, the possum, was "playing possum" (a joke) and acted insane. Possum also stole a hospital worker's stuffed animal and molested it--the clips did not show if the worker kept the animal, cleaned it, threw it away, or what. I am interested to know.
  • CSI -- It may have explored all aspects of the fandom, but it wasn't that demeaning to furries.
I am looking for the Drew Carey one. It's not in wikifur. The search function on there made searching bad--it searches all other wikis including uncyclopedia--and so it took me a long time to find out it was not there.
PS: Greenreaper, I see you edit wikifur a lot. Arights 10:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
you can search just WikiFur by clicking on Search, then Advanced Search. Oh, and Greenreaper is the founder of WikiFur, so it's to be expected that he'd edit it a lot. 8\ -kotra 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry we don't have the one you were looking for. I agree that the new inter-wiki search feature still needs tweaking, though it does throw up some interesting results sometimes (like Uncyclopedia's take on Furcadia . . .). And yes, as Kotra noted, I kinda founded WikiFur - look up a few sections to see why - so I do edit it quite often. :-) GreenReaper 05:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, whoever wrote that article on Furcadia must be a bit strange in the head. -kotra 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost as crazy as the person who wrote this UnNews story! GreenReaper 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
poor Uncyclopedians. They need help. -kotra 00:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiFur box

As much as I think WikiFur is a great resource, and although I do appreciate the spirit in which it was added, I do not feel that having this header at the top of the page is appropriate. Wikipedia's content should come first - let them look in the see also for more information. :-)

For more information on the furry fandom, please reference the Wikicities project WikiFur.

Perhaps it would work better as a little side box in the See also section, as used by the various Wikimedia Foundation projects? GreenReaper 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made a box in See also instead. How does it look? GreenReaper 22:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I approve. -kotra 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm working on the Disambiguation pages with links project. I've been concentrating on fixing all the links to the furry disambiguation page. I might not be doing the best job, since I'm not even a member of the furry fandom (though some of my friends are :). I thought I'd describe what I've been doing here and hope someone with a greater interest in the subject would take it up.

From the furry page, click on "What links here". Every article on the list has a link to the furry disambiguation page, which should be fixed to point to the most appropriate specific article. The idea is to fix all those in the Wikipedia namespace (not talk and user pages).

Many of the articles are about "furry comic books", ie. comics directed at or popular with the furry fandom, like Omaha the Cat Dancer, or furry websites or conventions. I think that most of these links should point to furry fandom. References to anthropomorphic characters, like Bugs Bunny, can often be pointed to funny animal or anthropomorphic. If I'm not sure, I often add an extra sentence so that all the relevant terms can be mentioned. Any comments or feedback? --The Famous Movie Director 06:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to at least start with this. The furry page was originally not a disambiguation page, which was one of the main reason for all the links. There is a Category:Furry, which may be of use for some links (particularly in terms of comics). I would agree that if something is not explicitly furry it is probably best to avoid linking to furry fandom, as that's probably one cause of all the issues we've had with the page in the past.
Note that one option in the case of highly restricted topics is to link to a WikiFur page on the topic instead with the WikiFur: prefix. I do not recommend this for all (or even most) topics, but it may be appropriate for some things that will never be getting a page here on Wikipedia. GreenReaper 08:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well that took a while but I think all of them are fixed. For now, anyways... -kotra 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Kotra, good work, but there are still a lot that don't appear on the first page--change it so that you view 250 results at a time and you should see all of them. :) --The Famous Movie Director 10:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
gah! I totally missed those. There seem to be way more than 250 though. This may take me a while. -kotra 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

history -- Grimm

Would little red riding hood count? Other Grimm's Fairy Tales should also count. I've done a google test [1] DyslexicEditor 00:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because the farthest back the furry fandom goes was the 1970s, by the most liberal accounts. That's not to say that modern furries haven't been inspired by earlier examples of anthropomorphic animals, or that fans of anthropomorphic animals didn't exist before then, but the actual furry fandom has only been around for two or three decades at the most. Those fairy tale animals might count as funny animals, though.
As for the Google test, it doesn't always work. I got more Google results by substituting "furries" with "tapeworms". [2] I think you'll agree that Little Red Riding Hood doesn't belong in the tapeworms article. -kotra 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. Someone must immediately write a section in tapeworms regarding their relevance in the story of Little Red Riding Hood. (Yes, I'm joking.) Zetawoof(ζ) 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the wolf did have LRRH living inside his stomach until the woodsman came along and cut him open. Tycon.jpgCoyoty 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I'd be more worried about them linking tapeworms to the furry fandom. All those roots and berries come with the danger of parasitic infection, you know! GreenReaper 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any tapeworm furries (slimies?) out there. I hope not. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of one who's a slug. — Saxifrage 08:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ever read "Namir Deiter?" One of the main characters is a slug. And there's a furry artist called Alvin Earthworm.
Does Little Red Riding Hood count? Why not? The Big Bad Wolf has always been drawn as an anthropomorphic character. So have The Three Little Pigs. The inspiration of furry fandom is the entire history of anthropomorphics, not just what has been created since the organization of the fandom. Perri Rhoades 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why all the vandalism here?

I added "The news and entertainment media have frequently focused on aspects of furry sexuality; mainstream media sources may portray furry fandom as a fetish-based subculture. For example, articles and columns in Vanity Fair and Loaded magazines, the syndicated sex column Savage Love, and pervscan [3] and dramatized fiction or documentaries portrayed on television shows like ER, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (CSI: Episode 406: Fur and Loathing), The Drew Carey Show, and MTV's Sex2K [4] have focused on the sexual aspects of furry fandom. Some articles link the furry fandom to other fetishes, such as bestiality and plushophilia, but many furry fans do not participate in or approve of such fetishes, nor do all agree with the characterization. A common counter-point is that furry characters are thinking, reasoning beings who are as capable of giving informed consent as any human. The comparison of the famous sex appeal of the Star Trek character Spock is often given as an example of a non-controversial variant, since he is at least technically no more human than a typical humanoid furry character." and then Zetawolf didn't like it so I worked even more on it and put "It has also been mentioned in the pervscan [5], however the article was not merely an aggregator, but the site wrote an article about the topic and discussed it, although it did mention articles from UWM Post and the Kimblery Hicks Free Times--although the article was mostly an editorial. " This is really notable as a news source and it is really hard to edit that awful long sentence, the first time. This is a slap in the face for my hard work. I can assume Zetawolf was just mean, but Coyoty was a vandal. Why does this article get vandalized so much, I don't see what the big deal is, furries are nothing strange. I thought maybe it's just Coyoty but I looked through the history and it's always been vandalized. Jotunheim 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that pervscan is primarily an aggregator - they don't really create any content. The article you're linking to, for example, consists primarily of a short discussion of a newspaper article. This is, in short, a blog, not a "mainstream media source". Characterizing these rollbacks as "vandalism" is specious. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that the newspaper article they cite is an image from encyclopedia dramatica, which is obviously a fake if you take a closer look. Just search for all the names of people and places and try to find anything about them and their work online. So that alone makes the site quite untrustworthy. And it's a completely non-notable website anyways. Oh, and you're not the most recent incarnation of User:Arights, right? Just curious. --Conti| 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, one of the newspaper articles they cite is a fake. The other is from "The UWM Post"; however, this turns out to be a student newspaper. It isn't even mentioned in the UWM Post article. Same result, though - pervscan is definitely not an example of a "mainstream news source", and wouldn't be even if the articles they were citing were from notable newspapers. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If this person is a recnt incarnation of another user then they also may be the one who keeps vandalizing furry lifestyler and template furry. DyslexicEditor 11:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, just because an entry is flawed doesn't mean the user is a sockpuppet vandal and none of the content can or should ever be included. What about good faith? Savage Love for instance is a very informative column that's certainly accurate and researched, if lightly comical, and is printed in just a whole lot of newspapers across the country. Lotusduck 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To cite savage love: "furries are men and women who are turned on by the idea of having sex with stuffed animals or having sex while wearing "fursuits" that make them look like stuffed animals." [6]. Um, no. I don't know how well published savage love is, I've never heard of it before, but the author has obviously no clue what he/she's writing about. And the lack of good faith here results from a vandal who's been here for a few months under about a dozen different usernames, trying to write exactly what I just quoted (and other, similar stuff like "fursuits are made of little animals") into this article. So whenever someone new proposes this, I assume that he's back and tries it again. --Conti| 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good faith is an official policy we should all try to follow. Men and women who are turned on by the idea of having sex with stuffed animals do indeed call themselves furries sir. To say that he has no idea what he's talking about is a huge overreaction. Here he says "While I did make one wee mistake in my column about furries (for the record: Not all furries are into fursuited sex or "modified" stuffed animals), in no way did I imply that there was something wrong with being a furry." While Assume good faith applies mainly to editors, you might want to extend that sentiment to the hardworking journalists that provide our sources. Lotusduck 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a "wee mistake", it's pretty much the standard thing done by newspapers, saying that all furries are into this or that stuff. The other standard mistake is saying that all furries have fursuits (and most probably like to yiff in it or something). Sure, some do, but so do some peoeple not calling themselves furries. I don't object to "some furries are men and women who are turned on by the idea of having sex with stuffed animals or having sex while wearing "fursuits" that make them look like stuffed animals", but we should find a definition that is for all furries, not just for a minority. There is quite a big difference between "Some humans are also furries" and "Humans are also furries", in my opinion.
WP:AGF also says "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". Please have a look at the contributions of User:Arights, User:Thodin and User:Crayolacrime, just to mention a few. I even got a very charming entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica thanks to that guy. I'm sorry, but I won't assume good faith there anymore. --Conti| 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I learned today that Crayolacrime is the husband of the owner of encyclopedia dramatica. what I saw DyslexicEditor 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Some much-needed clarification: People who are turned on by sex with stuffed animals are plushophiles. Furries are just anthropomorphic animals (or fans thereof). —Xydexx 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"we should find a definition that is for all furries, not just for a minority."

I doubt any such definition exists. The term “Furries” is used to describe so many different types of people who do not necessarily share the same interests. You even have to be careful of saying “All furries like anthropomorphic animals.” Because it’s not necessarily true.

Then there is the problem of finding official sources to quote, when most of the sources you would normally think of as credible don’t know anything but prejudicial hearsay about furry fandom. And most of what is written by fans tends to reflect a personal point of view, rather than verifiable facts.

The only verifiable facts I know of are prefaced with the word “Some.” Some furries like animal characters in animation. Some furries like to wear fursuits. Some furries draw anthropomorphic art. Some furries go to conventions. Some furries use the internet to connect with other fans. Some furries collect plushies. Some furries feel they have a spiritual connection to a certain animal type. Some furries relate sexual fetishes to the fandom. And so on. But what do all furries do? I know of no universal element that is in any way verifiable.

But then, perhaps a better question would be, “What does any of that have to do with the Wikipedia entry on Furry Fandom?” The fandom could be universally described as a fandom for fantasy animal related media. But to accurately explain what a furry is you would probably have to define it as an umbrella culture and break the entry up into 100 or so sub sections explaining everything the umbrella covers.

Personally, I like the entry the way it is, dealing primarily with what the fandom is, rather than trying to define what furries are. The term “Furries” is subjective. Its definition varies from furry to furry. Thus, any source you quote, no matter how credible it may seem, is only going to seem accurate to a minority of furries. Perri Rhoades 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a universal element does exist: "All furry fans like anthropomorphic animals." I've been seeing the "nobody can agree on what the definition is" meme going around for years now, but IMHO it's a case where it's true because it's repeated a lot, not because it's based in fact. It's always some vague and undefined group of other people who can't agree.
The latter half of your statement is technically correct, some furry fans like anthropomorphic animals in animation, some furry fans like to dress up as anthropomorphic animals, &c. To accurately explain furry fandom you focus on anthropomorphic animals. There's no need to get bogged down into the infinitesmal minutae of what every different furry fan does, because furry fandom isn't defined by what the fans do (i.e., some furry fans like geocaching, but that has nothing to do with furry fandom). Hope this clears things up a bit. —Xydexx 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, by my own standards I agree that to be a furry one should at least have a moderate interest in anthropomorphic animals. But, setting my personal opinion aside, I can not deny that I've seen surveys on sites like Furtopia where people have popped up and said "I'm a furry, but I have no interest in anthropomorphics." Apparently they think of themselves as furry for spiritual reasons or something like that. And The Furry Community makes no move to exclude such people. Hence I must conclude that the community does not solidly define the exact nature of a furry. Or at least does not limit it to fans of anthropomorphics. Perhaps you could say animal related fantasy is the key element. But the spiritualists will no doubt pop up and say they resent their furry religions being classed as fantasy. See, this is the kind of sticky wicket you get into when you step over the line between trying to define the furry fandom and get into "What's a furry." A furry is not necessarily a furry fan, and I think it was a mistake to merge the two pages. They are really two different concepts that need to be explained separately. Perri Rhoades 02:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually a little surprised to see the pages on furry fandom and furry lifestyle were merged—they're two different things! Heck, this was all hashed out back in 1996 with the big AFF/ALF split. This is why there is a distinction between furry fandom and furry lifestyle. Why are people trying to re-invent the wheel? The reason lifestylers weren't excluded is because the overwhelming majority of them did like anthropomorphic animal art/writing/&c.—at least that was the case several years ago. I can see how Lifestylers would be interested in the whole talking animal aspect with totem animals/spirit guides, but I concede the spirituality aspect is out of my scope of experience. I am curious to see this survey on Furtopia you mentioned. —Xydexx 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Lotusduck and the AfD discussion, it's not sufficiently different to deserve its own article. The consensus there was that apparently there's not enough justification and sourcing available for a separate article. *shrugs* I disagree, but the majority ruled. Tony Fox 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't around for that discussion, but it seems a darn shame that a committee of editors could not conceive that there is a major difference between a cartoon fandom and what basically amounts to a religion or philosophy. If the title of the page was “Furries” I might say it was cool to include a section on everything. But this is the Furry Fandom page.
If the Furry Lifestyler page was going to be merged it should have been merged with the Otherkin page, or an Alternate Lifestyle page, if we have one of those.
Is there any real documentation to support a relationship between the fandom for Mickey Mouse and Watership Down with a group of people who have an animal based philosophy? Would Walt Disney and Richard Adams not look us in the eye and say we were nuts?
Meanwhile, we have already sighted documentation that this issue was debated and settled 10 years ago, and that the fandom and the lifestyle have been considered different things ever since. Taking that into consideration, it sounds like Wikipedia arbitrarily decided to dispense with its own rules.
I think what is being missed here is an unaddressed entity, The Furry Community. Unlike the fandom, the community can stretch an umbrella over every conceivable type of animal related interest. When you speak of the community, it’s a place where fans and lifestylers meet and interact on a daily basis. That is what outsiders are seeing and basing the misjudgment on that they are the same thing. But they each go home to different neighborhoods that are located far apart.
Now, say you had a community with Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Atheist neighborhoods, and everybody from those neighborhoods shopped at the same stores and were very friendly and courteous to each other. Would that negate the individual identities of their neighborhoods? Would they all belong on the same Wikipedia page?
Well, that’s what we have with The Furry Community - fans, lifestylers, fetishists, etc. all interacting in the same community, but each having an individual identity and culture that does not deserve to be judged by the others. Furry Fans do not deserve to have a stigma placed on them that they are anything more than traditional cartoon and art enthusiasts. And likewise, lifestylers don’t need to have their philosophy trivialized by having it associated with cartoons.
You know, if people insist on this combination by association thinking, its only a matter of time before the Furry Fandom page gets merged with the Gay Culture page, because obviously there’s a gay neighborhood in The Furry Community, and everyone interacts with them in a friendly fashion, too. Thus, we will be promoting the idea that any fan of any cartoon animal is gay and thinks he has an animal spirit.
Can we please not do this? Can we not get each neighborhood its own page that states only what that neighborhood is about? Then, when people come to the Furry Fandom page they can get a straight up explanation without having to hear what goes on in every other neighborhood. What logic or necessity is there for an encyclopedia to participate in the spread of popular prejudice and misinformation, when it is only required to present basic facts? Perri Rhoades 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A recent wave of vandelism has spread since 24 June 2006. Is there any way we can protect this page to stop this sort of thing from happening again? ISD 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I contacted an administrator who is a member of the anti-vandalism unit to see if they could help stop the vandalism. They have added the article to a watchlist of IRC bots to help control things. ISD 09:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Afew reasons: there are people that hate furries. That, and the vast ammount of furry trolls who'd like nothing better to do then to ruin an article. I've had "normal" articles here messed about with in ways for unknown reasons then to amuse some guys that dont like me.

I've also editted afew articles only to have stuff moved about.. blime Wiki. A small selection of people here will change things around if they think that your spelling or formatting is off. It's happened to me in experience. -Daniel W. Blackwell

You Guys Are Gross

What the crap? Time to grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovenith (talkcontribs)

Then do it. Tycon.jpgCoyoty 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Is e suggesting that simply having an article on the furry fandom constitutes being gross? CameoAppearance 09:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that members of the fandom are gross. It's a comment on the culture, not the contributors (although, naturally, it does cover a large proportion of contributors). GreenReaper 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of the furry fandom IS gross. But then, is'nt all life? -Daniel W. Blackwell

Likely original research

This has been removed: "The comparison of the famous sex appeal of the Star Trek character Spock is often given as an example of a non-controversial variant, since he is at least technically no more human than a typical humanoid furry character."

It is a good example of original research. This is not a documented viewpoint, and therefore is likely simply the viewpoint of one editor. Or it is one editor reflecting what they experience as a common argument--which is original research. Expounding upon what to you is common sense (but is not repeated by published sources) is not okay. I could write something relatively encyclopedic-looking about how elves are not human either, yet are sex symbols. I could tie furry fandom to Orlando Bloom. But since wikipedia isn't a lazy persons publisher, it is more appropriate to not do so and to remove original research. Lotusduck 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section speculates as to the feelings someone might have to their furry avatar. It's speculative, and maybe insulting. All it does is explain what an avatar is and then over-verbosely say that they like their avatars and use their avatars to represent themselves. This section does nothing more than a "See also: Avatar (virtual reality)" added in.

Furry fans' personal characters (sometimes referred to by furries as "fursonas" or "personal furries") are usually based on their creators' personality or even a whimsical or sexual fantasy. They may become an online handle by which the fan will present themselves to other furries. Due to the isolation of the web, when furry fans meet one another in person, they may be more familiar with one another's online personas than with their real identities.

Furry fans often have strong feelings towards their animal personas or feel that they share a spiritual bond with the animal that their fursona is based upon. These feelings usually spur them on to create or commission artwork, stories, or fursuits featuring them. Lotusduck 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that but I kept forgetting to do anything. Let's see. Spock is half-human and half-vulcan whereas furry characters may not be part human at all. DyslexicEditor 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Speculative fiction and talking animals

I took out the link to “Speculative Fiction,” as this is not a term I have ever seen used in reference to the furry genre. Furry fiction has been called “allegorical fiction” on occasions, since it often attempts to present ideas in different contexts, but furry is rarely speculative in the way that science fiction can speculate on the outcome of current political and scientific trends. “1984” is speculative fiction. “Animal Farm” is allegory.

Took out “some fans consider any talking animal, humanoid or not, to be a furry.” The debate about whether talking animals are furries is not supported by documentation. It is basically just something a lot of fans quibble over. Meanwhile any list of generally accepted furry titles will contain many classic talking animal stories. Thus this comment seems to refer to something non-factual. Perri Rhoades 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes something that's scifi and fantasy is called speculative fiction. It's very popular and common in cartoons, and to a lesser extend video games. Oh, but try to get a novel published in the genre and the agents and editors won't have anything to do with you. Speculative fiction also does things like alternative history. Hmm... that one furry game about the animals getting intelligent in the future when all humans are dead (I forgot the name) probably is speculative fiction. DyslexicEditor 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean Inherit the Earth: Quest for the Orb? --Conti| 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea DyslexicEditor 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To quote the Wikipedia article on Speculative Fiction:

"In some contexts, [Speculative Fiction] has been used as an inclusive term covering a group of fiction genres that speculate about worlds that are unlike the real world in various important ways. In these contexts, it generally includes science fiction, fantasy, horror fiction, supernatural fiction, alternate history, and magic realism." --Dajagr 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard the term used to refer to the furry fandom before - this must not be one of those contexts. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the article in question for a fuller definition of the contexts. I didn't think it appropriate to copy the entire article verbatim. Another relevant portion, though: "In more recent times, the term has come into wider use again, and gained the neutral inclusive sense as a convenient collective term for a set of genres." If the term is really that desperately inappropriate (which I'm sort of skeptical of), then "science fiction/fantasy" or something could be used, but I do think that using the term "fantasy" exclusively is not appropriate for this article, because there is a not insignificant amount of science fiction to furry fandom (Tai-Pan, Chakona Space, Freefall, Forest of the Night, etc.) --Dajagr 06:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the oldest Furry writers who is likely to talk to you on this topic, I can say without hesitation that my own work is indeed Speculative Furry Science Fiction. I wouldn’t mind at all finding my work in the Speculative Fiction category. But when I think of 75% of the Furry works that have inspired me over the years, I can not see them getting any benefit out of being called Speculative Fiction.
Let me put this in perspective for you. I’m looking at one fellow’s list of his favorite Speculative Fiction titles. He’s listing authors like Robert Heinlein, J.R.R. Tolkien, Terry Pratchett, Larry Niven and C. S. Lewis. Ok, now go up to this dude and tell him you’ve decided Furry is to be included as part of Speculative Fiction. Therefore, he must be confronted with My Little Pony, Garfield, Samurai Pizza Cats and Care Bears.
This is what I observe. Speculative Fiction has yet to achieve a solid definition. It’s one of a number of new terms floating around that people want to mold into something they want it to be. But so far the most success in molding this term seems to have been in the direction of crowding the sci-fi, fantasy and horror genres under a single umbrella.
As such, certain types of Furry works, like mine, could find space under that umbrella. But it’s an umbrella for serious literature. I hardly think I’m going to find Hoppy The Marvel Bunny under that umbrella.
I’m sad to say, but serious Furry literature that would qualify as Speculative Fiction makes up at best 25% of The Furry Genre, as it currently exists. I’m currently building one of the only existing documents on The Furry Genre, and at least 75% of the time I’m talking about cartoons or some form of children’s literature or entertainment, all of which would make the new fans of Speculative Fiction run for the hills.
My conclusion. Furry is not Speculative Fiction. Furry can cross into Speculative Fiction, just like it can cross into any other genre, but those other genres are not essential to Furry. All that is essential to Furry is Furry characters. And it’s no more normal to see a Furry character in a Speculative Fiction setting than it is to find one in an Old West setting. Furry characters are actors. Any kind of role you give them, they’ll play it. But no genre can lay claim to them, other than The Furry Genre.
We have our own umbrella. We don’t need to be begging for space under Speculative Fiction. Perri Rhoades 08:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed a word which seems to be nonsense.

The article said

"Content created by furry fans on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests, including fantasy, philosophy, recipes, sex, politics, religion and lifestyle."

But I've removed "Recipes" because it seems to be nonsense and now the article says:

"Content created by furry fans on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests, including fantasy, philosophy, sex, politics, religion and lifestyle."

But I'm just posting this in case anyone thinks "recipes" should be in there for some reason which I can think of because I've never come across a furry cookery site. Beno1000 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were a furry cooking site out there somewhere. (With things like West Gate Of Moria Fudge out there, it's dangerous to assume the non-existence of anything.) Still, it's a bit of a non-sequitir there. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I know where it comes from. The Carspeckens, who create the popular furry comic “Faux Pas,” have another series called “Sweet Treats.” It’s a series of cookbooks hosted by an anthro fox girl. The word was probably included in the line to show the diversity of furry creativity. Perri Rhoades 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you just beat me to it. Sweet Treats - Easy-To-Make Dessert Recipes from the Kitchen of Marsha Redfox. There is also the new Recipe Portfolio and the Cake Portfolio. GreenReaper 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So... I guess the question now is whether it's a notable enough interest in the fandom for inclusion there. Also, I didn't include it in the spoken article recording I made earlier either, so I guess it's too late to put into that if we do decide it should be in there. Beno1000 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I thought it justified the whole line, if the purpose of the line is to demonstrate the extreme range of furry creativity. The line isn't really about how popular or prolific the types of creativity are. It's purpose is to give the reader a sense of how far reaching the applications of the furry arts are. As such, I think it could use a little expanding, rather than trimming. And some citations could be thrown in to demonstrate how the furry arts are applied to these things. Like, next to the word “recipes” there could be a link to the Sweet Treats page. Perri Rhoades 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The gay paragraph dispute and the CSI link

DyslexicEditor wrote: “sounds too POV-pushy. Take that back, it was POV-pushy. This is NPOV. Also noted example of where the conception comes from”

It was not pushy. It was short, to the point, and based on the sighted reference. It was as by the book as you could get. But hey, if you want to play up a myth, be my guest.

And I can’t believe you actually linked a download page with the CSI episode and every other derogatory video ever made about the fandom. Geez, who needs trolls? Congratulations, you have, in one single action, nullified the positive potential of this page. Why did I even bother removing the link to Something Awful that was put in last night?

I’m rapidly losing faith in Wikipedia. I’ve had another look at the rules, and that “Verifiability, not truth” statement is really wearing on me. The truth is that you’re link to the CSI video and the other derogatory references are the only citations on this page that meet Wikipedia’s standards for a reliable source. To go by Wikipedia’s standards this page would have to portray the fandom exactly as the press does, even though we all know they’ve never printed a true word about us.

Somebody drop me an E-mail when Wikipedia wises up to the value of truth. Till then, I can’t justify the time I’m wasting on this. Perri Rhoades 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The link, is kind of a blog, but then again someone coming for information would rather have it than nothing. The site says:
Sexual Orientation:
  Heterosexual:  (25%)
  Bisexual:    (48%)
  Homosexual:    (19%)
  Uncertain:    (8%)
I thought "misconception" and "this notion has been dismissed as a myth" need something that says so or they're POV. The site says about half are bisexual and 19% are homosexual. I've heard the average for people is 10% of both. I remember these statistics were once in the article but removed because the article lacked verifiability. I've done another version link highlights it that I think is good. I also phrase it positively, "at least 25% are heterosexual," not a denial that "a very high percentage of lifestylers are gay or bisexual." (last quote your words) Denying a rumor starts a rumor.
Okay, well I'm sure that line with be edited and re-edited and completely in the months to come, so well...
The ER and CSI episodes. Well, they're cited so they're important. I personally believe that someone uninterested in the fandom is not going to bother to download them. ER tells of a normal furry who doesn't like weird furries. CSI actually wasn't that bad. The link came from wikifur, and wikifur is always a good source on furries. They're better than vanity fair and MTV. So let's see, if it's true that someone uninterested in the fandom is not going to bother to download them and they're better than vanity fair and MTV, and they're necessary information for the article, why shouldn't they be included?
I looked at the something awful and it was just see also. No reference. DyslexicEditor 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, I don’t mean to be unkind, but your edits are only making it worse. The original paragraph I was given to deal with said there was no verifiable evidence that homosexuality was an issue in furry fandom. If it wasn’t an issue, what need was there for the article to even put that idea in peoples’ minds that they should think gay when they think furry? So I dropped it.
Beno wanted it back in. And I didn’t want to argue. So I looked into what the linked citation on the subject actually said. It says, point blank, our research shows there is no reason to regard the connection between furry fandom and homosexuality as anything but a myth.
Do you realize what a gift from the gods that is? Something you can quote as a reliable source under Wikipedia’s rules that flat out denies the existence of a furry stereotype. So, if Beno had to bring this stereotype to the attention of our readers, why not do what you’re supposed to do at Wikipedia - go with the source, whether it’s true or not.
Thus I hoped to turn this awkward situation into a triumph, and I wrote it by the book, using the verifiable source. But you went off half cocked on the rewrites, and the way you’ve got it now is worse than it ever was in terms of focusing the minds of the readers on the stereotype.
Please compare what I wrote to the citation and consider undoing this horrible devastation you have done to the article. Not only the gay paragraph, but the link to 4chan, the worst notorious cesspool on the net next to Something Awful, and that video page.
I beg you to understand, those videos are devastating. I’ve just watched the SCI episode and am in a state of agony over it. It’s not bad enough that they portrayed us as a cult, but the ending . . . My God! I don’t even want to see a fursuit now.
Those videos will become the main feature of the page, and nothing we write will refocus the readers on the idea that this is an innocent cartoon animal fandom. The written articles that are linked are bad enough. We are not required to illustrate every slander or slur that has been cast upon us. We do not need to help the media destroy our fandom with free airplay, especially when those downloads are illegal to start with.
Please, for God’s sake, if you care anything about furry fandom, revert the page. I’m going away now and try to put that ending out of my mind. Perri Rhoades 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree that the links to the CSI and Sex2K shows are completely unnecessary - the mentions of them in the article indicate that yes, the fandom has been touched on, but there's really no reason why they should be thrown out there, especially since they're so terribly wrong about what actually goes on, and are so badly skewed towards the sexual aspect that non-furs seem to want to get their claws into so badly. The 4Chan link is completely and entirely redundant, and doesn't need to be there at all. As for the surveys, I think that section needs a bit more review, but the thing with surveys and statistics that I've learned in the media is that you can make them sound any way you want if you word it right. I'd prefer to see them put in the article in a way that lets the reader interpret them, rather than providing an interpretation. Tony Fox 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I know you want to have the article designed to make furries look good (which carries with it a POV tone in your edits), but whatever either of us write will get edited and changed a bunch of times. I mean look at this, here someone goes and takes off any sexual relation to fursuits. All will change from countless editors. DyslexicEditor 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted that edit on fursuit, such removals shouldn't be done without discussion. I don't really oppose linking to the CSI episode on moral grounds, everyone should be free to make up his own opinion. But isn't it illegal to link to pages where you can download complete episodes of a series anyways? I think that might be more of a problem here.
I'm also unsure about the phrase "at least 25% are heterosexual". It kinda makes me think "then up to 75% are gay?", which is quite misleading of course. --Conti| 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I got a vibe from Perri Rhoades that he wants this article to make furries look good. Of course that's not something wikipedia is about. But I also think he's not doing it right. He thinks my edits weren't good and maybe they weren't. I looked through homosexual and well there's many homosexuals and they probably don't want the article to say bad things about them. I looked there for statistics on homosexuality and well the article says a few statistics it sounds unconfident about. One its 1-10% is homosexual, another is 2-3%, and another 4%. It said male sheep were 6-10%. Then in bisexual the article states one study that finds 2-6% of the population are bisexual and another that claims only 5-10% of the population are truly heterosexual or homosexual (meaning 90-95% of people are bisexual). The statistics basically sound uncertain so I'm giving more credit to the statistics in the article sourced even though it's not academic and slightly bloggy. Well the article sourced does say it debunks the idea tha "90% of furry men are gay," but it doesn't.
Okay also those links, came from wikifur. I think wikifur is a good furry source basically. Although it does claim that most furries are engineers and computer programemrs (maybe another site did that) and the article says 22% Computer Professional
The article actually states, "Truth be told, there are many more homosexual members of the fandom than in general society." So Perri, this is not the right article to prove what you want. Hmm.. you also stated "a very high percentage", which could mean anything. Umm, the article continues with, "However, it is not -in my research- an exact reversal. In fact, between the three classifications of homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual (with "homosexual" encompassing both gay men and lesbians), homosexuality is still in the minority. However, surprisingly, bisexuality makes up an enormous 48% of all Furries responding to the survey." So Perri, I'd suggest finding a different survey to prove your point. It has lots of interesting statistics. Hmm... I'm going to put some other statistics out there like nationality and people can edit what I write. DyslexicEditor 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I don't know what to do for the sex parts, so I gave the statistics as is. I said in edit summary I don't want to debunk as debunk means I have to find what to debunk and give sources and I don't think any of the media references specifically say anywhere that they represent the majority of furry culture, they just show off certain things so it's hard to find something to debunk that's a source worthy of wikipedia's verifiability policy. The article has many interesting statistics. Also since I put The Sociology of Furry Fandom in the reference section, maybe it should be removed from the external links. I think the most important thing of it all I gave first, "70% of furries live in the United states, 27% in Canada, and the remaining 3% in Europe of a total 35 internet and 325 in-person." This may not be representative of furries, but of the survey--maybe it should be stated? DyslexicEditor 01:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But isn't it illegal to link to pages where you can download complete episodes of a series anyways? I think that might be more of a problem here. No, it's not. Many websites even depend on this kind of thing. It might even count as fair use. Umm... I would like someone who knows to verify that it is legal to simply link to a page offsite. I really don't know where to ask here though. Sometimes I ask a policy question on a talk page and everyone ignores it or nobody talks there. And then The Pirate Bay links to its website, which is full of warez. DyslexicEditor 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, in this age of copyright craziness, the networks will sue the pants off of anyone they find linking to that page. You are using their material. That's all they care about.
And about your accusation that I'm trying to make the fandom look good, that’s not exactly true. What I was interested in was representing the fandom truthfully, which is something that has never been done on any non-furry site. Silly me thought Wikipedia would allow for such a thing. But there’s always got to be one bad apple on the team who just doesn’t get the reality that there are no realistic statistics to quote. And if there’s no verification, you don’t have to say anything.
All you’re doing is stirring up a lot of stereotypes that have to be capped off by saying you have no proof of this. Which is like saying, “I didn’t have to bring this to your attention. I just wanted to make sure this prejudicial idea sticks in your mind.”
Darn it, if you don’t believe the statistics in the survey, just delete the whole paragraph. That survey is the only citation you’ve got. You’re not required to believe it to use it, but if you choose not to believe it, and you want to get moral on Wikipedia’s butt, then just take the whole paragraph out.
Read the rules. You’re not supposed to question the validity of your sources. Your just supposed to repeat what it says. And what it says is that homosexuality is not an issue in furry fandom. It says that idea has been proven a myth. If your going against your source, you’re breaking the rules. Even if you know your source is totally wrong. Say what the source says or say nothing. That’s the Wikipedia way.
P.S. It pisses me off no end that I'm being attacked for going along with rules I don't believe in in the first place.
P.P.S. I like the full statistics thing that has replaced the gay paragraph. It seems more neutral. Perri Rhoades 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For asking about legal question, you might try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), although I'm not sure that's the perfect place to ask. Hmm, and I generally don't like statistics that much, so it's no surprise I'd rather see less of them on this article. But the one about what countries furries come from really should go. The guy asked people in american conventions where they come from, so the results are hardly surprising and aren't helpful at all. I could go to an european convention and find out that most of the people there come from.. europe! Gee, what a surprise. --Conti| 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits are up there for others to revise. They're not perfect. DyslexicEditor 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know,there has been good,verifiable press about Anthrocon lately.You could put those alongside the MTV and Vanity Fair press.In fact,I will do that tonight. User:Crud,I forgot my name.

Attention Members of the Furspiracy

Adding one (1) anti-fur link is not against wikipedia policy. There are no rules against showing a different perspective (furspective? Yuk Yuk!) on a topic.

Yes, Mr. Anonymous IP, I, as a "member of the furspiracy," am going to leave this where it is for now. Other editors: discussion, please - are these lovely links (which have been removed several times now) appropriate for this article? Opinions, please, so we can have a consensus on the addition. Tony Fox 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The furry fandom has nothing to do with any type of real world sex. It's a completely fantasy based fandom. Adding lifestyle to the furry fandom page confuses the issue a little. I could advise you to bump it into the lifestyler section. But lifestyle is more like religion or philosophy. It also has no direct connection to any real world sex. If bestiality belongs anywhere, it belongs on a sexual fetish page. There's no a way bestiality link belongs here. Scrap it please, and scrap 4chan while you're at it. Last I heard, 4chan had banned furry art. It's an anime site. Perri Rhoades 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Furspiracy? The "monolithic anti-furry conspiracy" or the "furluminati"? DyslexicEditor 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I think there ought to be a reference made to the fact that some furry fans, and (in my experience anyway) most furry lifestylers, refer to themselves as "furs", not as "lifestylers". (We're just lazy, that's all.) I'm not sure where to put it, though, as it doesn't need a whole paragraph, just a passing reference. Loganberry (Talk) 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Various Revisions

I'm a little puzzled by what was "ill-advised" about the revisions on the 23rd of June. A number of the revisions cleaned up misleading vocabulary (e.g., "nonprofessional" vs. "unprofessional"), clarified potentially misleading sections (such as the 9130 number for convention attendance, which almost certainly counts multi-con attenders, such as dealers, at least twice), made grammatical corrections ("MUSHs" vs "MUSHes," the section entitled "Furry lifestyler" as if there were only one, the misspelled "Caucasian", and several sentence fragments). In addition, the repeated stressing of the term "fantasy" ignores the fact that a lot of furry literature is much closer to science fiction than fantasy (such as the Tai-Pan universe), as well as some of the symbolic or allegorical characters (would you really call Tony the Tiger or Toucan Sam "fantasy" characters?). --Dajagr 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the reversion was simply because there were some rather contentious edits mixed in there - most notably, the categorization of furry fandom as a strict subset of speculative fiction. There were some good edits in there, though; I'd be happy to see the spelling of "polyamorous" done right, for example. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, though some of the minor grammatical corrections were ok, the major revisions changed the whole direction of the article and verged on pushing a POV that hasn’t been substantiated to my satisfaction.
In particular, this pushing of the idea that Furry is somehow expressly linked to Speculative Fiction is a POV that I can’t substantiate by looking around the net at what most people are calling Speculative Fiction. From what can be seen, Speculative Fiction means something very different. And it’s just not a term you hear kicking around the fandom very much, if at all.
As I said above in the “Speculative Fiction” section, I don’t dispute that some Furry works qualify as Speculative Fiction. But I’m not being shown any reason to believe Furry is anymore attached to Speculative Fiction than it is to any other genre, and I am wary of letting the article reflect a misleading point of view in that respect.
Other edits. I don’t know how anyone else feels, but I tend to think it’s best to keep a Wikipedia article simple, as in providing information in a clear, to the point manner, with no unnecessary repetition. No frills, just the facts. That’s why the intro has no example titles in it. I particularly didn’t want you to put Maus up there. Especially since Maus is already mentioned in its appropriate place.
As for correcting the statistics section, that’s a sore thumb area. It’s a battle of compromise between various editors and sticking to Wikipedia rules. Technically, we all know the statistics are suspect. But under Wikipedia rules we have to print exactly what they say and not question or interpret them. Thus, it’s not a good idea to try to make the statistics more reflective of reality. Personally, I’d like to see the whole statistics thing deleted on the premise that the statistics are way out dated and there’s no current statistics to replace them.
As for you’re not liking the term “Fantasy,” this is a term that has reflected every aspect of The Furry Genre for well over 100 years. I can flood this page with citations of every aspect of Furry being referred to as Fantasy. Citations of Furry being referred to as Speculative Fiction are kind of hard to come by. I don’t even see Furry mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Speculative Fiction. And I didn’t see a whole lot of Furry titles on the lists of Speculative Fiction I found on the net. Under the circumstances, I just have to ask. What the heck is so wrong with the term “Fantasy?” Fantasy is perfectly capable of covering Science Fiction as well. You just call it Science Fiction Fantasy.
And I’ll tell you something else that I know from bitter experience. The fact that I write Science Fiction doesn’t grant me access to Science Fiction circles. It doesn’t matter how good you are at writing Science Fiction, if you can be classed as Furry, as far as the sci-fi crowd is concerned, you’re coming way out of left field from the fantasy genre, and they can be quite rude about showing their disdain for you. Thus, it’s kind of a lost cause trying to get Furry any respect as Science Fiction. Whether it has Science Fiction elements or not, it’s still Furry Fantasy.
As for the question “Are Tony the Tiger or Toucan Sam fantasy characters?” Yes. They’re fantasy cartoon characters. The fact that they’re used in advertisements doesn’t make them any more real or less dreamed up. Get it? Fantasy = dreamed up. Perri Rhoades 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the term "fantasy" is that it provides the wrong impression. When the average person hears the word "fantasy," they think of wizards and magic and dragons and such. I don't deny that there's a lot of that in furry fandom. But it's misleading to use only the word "fantasy" to refer to furry characters. It excludes the portion of the genre that touches on genetic engineering and alien contact. Just because it doesn't necessarily qualify as "hard" science fiction doesn't disqualify it as science fiction (and some work that has been noted as having furry qualities flirts with the hard sci-fi moniker, such as David Brin's Uplift series). Calling it "science fiction fantasy" (which term I have, frankly, never heard before) is not helpful, precisely because that is not a common term. This isn't a "science fiction fan" reference work. This is a general reference work. Kowtowing to a couple of people in "the sci-fi crowd" who are too elitist to include anything in furry fandom under their umbrella does a disservice to the average reader, and, to be honest, it demonstrates bias.
As far as the statistics go, the section either needs to be clarified or left out. As it stands, it provides the wrong impression (particularly in claiming a growth figure attached to the number; the "increase of 13%" could be the number of distinct people, which is implied, or it could be more dealers attending multiple conventions as the more regional ones continue to grow--again, this is something that the average reader is not going to be familiar with).
Finally, I'd like to suggest that simply reverting a change that includes cleanup is a poor approach. If you disagree with some elements of a revision, remove those elements (with comment as to why, and preferably using terms less inflammatory than "ill-advised"), but there's no need to reintroduce error in the process. --Dajagr 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying alien contact isn't fantasy? It kinda seems like that to me, at least with some of the aliens you get in the furry genre. :-)
I agree that new statistics would be great to have. Perhaps that would be something to do at the next Anthrocon or MFF.
Yes, please merge changes that are not contentious rather than just reverting to a previous version. In general, editing from the current version works best, even if you have to copy text from the edit page on an older version. It's more work, but if they took the time to fix the other problems then it's only right to keep the fixes. GreenReaper 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a sociological survey being performed at this year's Anthrocon. Someone on AC staff will probably know when and where the results will be published or compiled.
Also, I know a lot of furry sci-fi efforts eat Clarke's Third Law for breakfast. :) What I'm trying to argue is that the average individual sees "fantasy" and thinks "Dungeons and Dragons" (or, if we're really lucky, "Lord of the Rings"); things like S. Andrew Swann's Moreau series or the Uplift War series or even Freefall won't come to mind, and calling those "fantasy" is going to be confusing. I wonder if "fantastical" might be a compromise term... --Dajagr 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that my objection is not to having “Speculative Fiction” mentioned in the article. It is simply that everyone who has yet tried to put it in has made it a bigger deal than it is. It can easily be slipped into the list of mediums that is already there. As long as it is not given more importance than the other Furry mediums, it should be ok.
Actually, if you’ve got a list of Furry novels that are officially classed as Speculative Fiction, we could add a Speculative Fiction section to the lower section that has lists of titles in it. The thing is to give it proper status to its relationship to The Furry Genre. Not make out like a significant amount of material that’s labeled “Furry” is going to appeal to Speculative Fiction fans.
About what people think when they think “Fantasy,” the general public thinks anything from Lewis Carroll to Piers Anthony. It’s a classic umbrella term that means anything outlandishly fanciful, including Science Fiction and animal allegories. This is the first I’m hearing that there is any negative connotation to the term “Fantasy” in the literary world. And if you’re thinking that by means of some new ambiguous terminology you’re going to get Furry writing elevated above the status of fantasy, that’s a nice fantasy you’ve got going there. Perri Rhoades 00:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, wait. I never said there was anything negative about the connotations of the term "fantasy"; I just felt that it gave the wrong impression. I honestly don't think that the "fantasy" umbrella covers science fiction. The Fantasy Wikipedia article very specifically states that fantasy uses "magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting." Again, Clarke's Third Law notwithstanding, I think that this is a miscategorization for general reference to furry characters: I think that using only the word "fantasy" to characterize furry characters ("fantasy animal characters", "animal related fantasy fans") is trying to stuff them into a container that doesn't fully fit them. This isn't about "elevation"; this is about perceived accuracy. I don't want people to come away from the article thinking that the genre is primarily about magic/supernatural. That's my primary objection to the term. --Dajagr 01:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You want to take out the word “Fantasy” and replace it with “Speculative Fiction,” because you don’t want people to come away from the article thinking the genre is primarily about magic and supernatural. Well, that’s what I call seriously misleading the reader with a POV based on one’s personal taste.

Perhaps you think there is a lot of this serious speculative sci-fi in the genre because you’re specifically into that angle of Furry. But cast an eye over everything that’s listed in the article as being relevant to the genre. What percentage of it is not fantasy? What percentage of it is not children’s fare or comedy? What percentage of it is serious speculative science fiction?

Now take into account the amount of morphing animals in Gothic horror - werewolves, vampires and such. And also the tendency of many a Furry author to use medieval settings with magic. Stack this ponderous amount of titles up against the miniscule number of serious speculative Furry works that exist. Then I think you will see why it is wrong to steer the readers towards thinking Speculative Fiction is a dominant factor in The Furry Genre. I think you’ll find that fantasy is the predominant factor here. Fantasy animals, to be precise.

I just took a look at Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Why do you keep sighting this and dismissing it? This is essential.

What Clarke is saying is that certain authors envision science that is not speculative, likely or provable. Some stray completely into the realms of fantasy when conceiving the alternate science they base their books on. Hence, when you slip the bounds of speculation, you slip the bounds of science fiction and enter the realm of fantasy.

Here's an example from my own writing. In my story, my characters go to Magical School. The first lesson they are taught is that “Magic is a science.” Magic works on scientific principles that were unknown in generations past, but by understanding this science, you can do seemingly impossible things. I then go on to explain this science of magic in very scientific terms, effectively erasing the boundary between science fiction and fantasy.

But to say this magical world I’ve built around scientific ideas belongs in the science fiction genre would be pretentious. My science is fabricated. It’s not based on possible future developments in real world science. It’s not saying this is a possible future the reader has to look forward to. It’s just offering the reader a pleasant dream - a fantasy.

I can’t say I’ve read the “Moreau series,” which seems to be the main example of Speculative Furry Fiction being held up here. But from the synopsis I see something I regard as very common to Furry literature - freeform mixing of genres. Elements of science fiction, funny animals, and the noir thriller. I don’t see how any such combination can translate to anything but fantasy. Serious fantasy, yes, but still fantasy.

This is what Furry does. It crosses into other genres and mutates them towards fantasy, because the very presence of talking intelligent animals, let alone anthropomorphic ones, is impossible - an outlandish fancy. In the presence of this fancy, all the preconceived rules of established genres fall away, and you stand in a world where anything is possible. You have completely left reality behind, and the only thing to speculate about is how far your imagination will fly in this new state of freedom.

Or, to use the Lewis Carroll analogy, Furry is a rabbit hole you fall into. And you never know what kind of world is waiting for you at the bottom. You must leave all your preconceived notions behind and approach it with an open mind, else you will not enjoy the adventure.

Let’s now go to and look up Fantasy Author. “ The definition of a fantasy author is somewhat diffuse, and a matter of opinion - Jules Verne considered H. G. Wells to be a fantasy author - and there is considerable overlap with science fiction authors and horror fiction authors. However some notable part of the output of the following writers leans more to the fantasy end of the spectrum:”

Who do I take note of on this list? Richard Adams, Piers Anthony, L. Frank Baum, Peter S. Beagle, Lewis Carroll, Alan Dean Foster, C.S. Lewis, Terry Pratchett, Tad Williams. That’s a lot of furriness under fantasy.

Now, let’s look up Science Fiction on “Science Fiction: A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.”

It would seem is at odds with your theory that science fiction is not fantasy. It’s just a particular type of fantasy based on speculation. Speculation, itself, being a form of fantasy or daydream. Perri Rhoades 07:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have developed a distorted view of my position. I am not wedded to the term "speculative." Yes, I made a couple of comments in the Speculative Fiction section above. I was hoping that "speculative fiction" could be used as an umbrella term to cover fiction where the plot or theme depends on scientific principles to generate settings that have not yet occurred in reality ("science fiction") and fiction where the plot or theme depends on magic or supernatural principles (one definition of "fantasy"). I chose that particular term based on the Wikipedia Speculative Fiction article, which I have already cited once, and also based on the "about us" page for Strange Horizons, an award-winning web-based self-described speculative fiction magazine, which defines speculative fiction as "what is more commonly known as 'sci-fi,' but which properly embraces science fiction, fantasy, magic realism, slipstream, and a host of sub-genres." However, based on objections to that term early on, I have not even mentioned the term since I made those comments.
My position, since then, has simply been that I want to see the article written in such a manner that "fantasy" is not used as the sole descriptor of furry characters. My reasoning for this is that "fantasy" is used in a number of instances to specifically indicate a setting in which things that are not currently part of reality are made possible by the introduction or existence of magic or the supernatural. I cited the Fantasy Wikipedia article earlier. I will also point to a page at the website of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors of America, in which it states that the organization was originally referred to as the "Science Fiction Authors of America" and that there was at one point a question "as to whether fantasy works could be used for membership qualification." This indicates a distinction between the two genres, and not a whole subsumption of one under the other. I will even refer back to one of your quotations from, where it says that there is overlap between fantasy authors and science fiction authors. That would be a strange way to refer to a situation in which it is a given that all science fiction authors are fantasy authors. Or, perhaps, more tellingly: "The definition of a fantasy author is somewhat diffuse, and a matter of opinion." If the term can be considered contentious, or in several situations to not be fully inclusive of the furry genre, I suggest that it is really not the way we want to refer to it in a neutral reference work.
Again, I have never denied that fantasy works make up a sizeable body of furry literature and settings. However, to use only that term can be seen as exclusive to the following, which have all been seen as furry literature):
All I'm requesting is that we find a more neutral term than "fantasy" for a general descriptor. I suggested "fantastical" as a possibility earlier, but I believe that suggestion was overlooked as you continued to argue against "speculative." "Anthropomorphic" is a much tighter term, although I am somewhat worried about the accessibility of the term, and it can sound stilted if it's repeated. It appears that you believe that any fiction containing anthropomorphic characters is, by nature, impossible, but I think that other authors don't necessarily hold that point, while writing stories about genetic modification (Uplift Universe, Moreau series, Chakona space) and aliens that resemble Earthly animals (Sholan alliance, Chanur novels, Man-Kzin wars). I would suggest that insisting on using the "fantasy" term to the potential exclusion of this other body of genre work borders on a loss of neutrality, by pushing your view that such things are impossible. I have discussed the difference between science fiction and fantasy informally with various friends of mine, and every one of them has agreed that there is a distinction between science fiction and fantasy, rather than the latter being an umbrella term strictly subsuming the former. Even if the term "fantasy" has been used in such a way before (per your citation of, I believe that I have demonstrated that this view is not strictly accepted, both from my citations and from my external discussions (which I, admittedly, cannot cite here).
I don't want an edit war. I'd like to resolve this amicably. I want to be able to phrase the article in terms that are accessible to the general public. Because of what I have shown, I do not believe that "fantasy" is the proper term. --Dajagr 18:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don’t want to have an edit war either. But this argument is ridiculous. A fantasy animal is a fantasy animal, whether it was produced by gene splicing, nuclear disaster, a Xanthian love spring or just some cartoonist’s whim. You don’t make a fantasy animal not a fantasy animal by sticking it in a space ship or putting it in a semi-realistic setting. It’s still a fantasy animal.
I reiterate. I’m a writer in this genre. My own anthropomorphic characters were produced as the result of a genetic war. They are portrayed as realistically as any characters in any type of sci-fi story. And the whole premise of my series is social allegory and speculation on the outcome of trends in real world science and politics. That does not alter the fact that my characters are half human fantasy animals. I can materialize these characters into any type of story you can point out in any genre, no matter how serious, realistic, speculative or even historical, and the fact that they are fantasy animals will never change.
Any argument you had going to the contrary got blown out of the water when you included Chakats on your list. Chakats are not only firmly in the fantasy genre, they’re in the erotic fantasy genre. A Chakat would be a poster example of a fantasy animal.
It makes no sense at all to suggest that a Chakat or any other type of anthropomorphic, talking, morphing, mythical or toonish animal character would somehow be excluded by the term “fantasy animal.” In fact, this is the only term that does not exclude any of the above.
And no, “Fantastical” is not a suitable substitute. Who in or out of this fandom uses that term or wouldn’t have to do a double take over it? This is supposed to make the article easier to read for Joe Average on the street?
The intro is fine. Please don’t mess it up with this non-sense. If you feel some titles warrant spotlighting to give the reader a broader view of the genre, please put them in the proper sections provided for examples, and let it go at that. I’m asking nicely. Okay? Please stop trying to rewrite the terminology of the genre I work in. It doesn’t help. Seriously, it doesn’t. Perri Rhoades 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Screw this. I'm not going to bother. It's pointless to argue with someone who won't listen. I've tried suggesting compromises. I've cited example after example to support my point. If you want to misrepresent my hobby, fine. This is exactly why Wikipedia gets trashed as a bad reference source. I know that any changes I make are going to be edited out, and it's not worth my effort. --Dajagr 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your description of Wikipedia I agree with completely. Perri Rhoades 08:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's start this over, now that I've taken enough time away to take several deep breaths and start thinking rationally again. While I still stand by my basic point—namely, that at least for some, "fantasy" specifically applies to fiction with a blatantly magical or supernatural theme, plot, or setting—my poorly-considered outburst almost certainly did a better job of undermining my credibility than any argument anyone else could have put forward. Accordingly, I plan to shelve any effort on my part toward changes in that term for the nonce. Additionally, I would like to issue a general apology for my unprofessional behavior. Mea maxima culpa. --Dajagr 23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Furry Userboxes

I've started a section of furry userboxes. It is small at the moment, but if anyone has any ideas, you can create your own userboxes by joining the WikiProject Userboxes. To see the current userboxes, see Userboxes/Books. ISD 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry?

I just thought, what if we could start a furry WikiProject? With it, we could sort out all of wikipedia's furry articles better. We can sort them out by genre (comedy, drama, adult), the years they were made, the medium they were made (comics, television), and other such areas. ISD 10:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiFur? has'nt that already been done? Then again, if you visit WikiFur you'll find it mostly to be egosentric. -Daniel W. Blackwell

Contentious, repeated edits

Let's break down these edits you're pushing, Mr. Anonymous And Very Insistent IP. Firstly, the bestiality link to WikiFur. While yes, it's on WikiFur, it does NOT use the word 'furry' anywhere in the article, nor does it say that some furries are involved in that practice. Thus, it really has nothing to do with this article. Next, the bit about sexualizing anthropomorphic animals is unsourced. Yes, Google has sexual images of anthropomorphic animals. This does not make that a blanket statement regarding all furry fans. Discussion of sexuality occurs further on in the article; your statement is opinion, and thus is POV. I'll leave the CYD link for someone else to explain. Have a nice day. And drop the insulting "You lose at the Internet" edit summary, thanks. Tony Fox (speak) 05:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, this doesn't change the fact that you're obviously incapable of maintaining a NPOV attitude towards this subject. The sexual element of furry fandom (which is obviously its most notorious aspect) has been downplayed in this article to ridiculous measures, making it highly POV and unencyclopedic. - 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that you continue to replace edits that have been removed repeatedly, attempt to overemphasize aspects of the fandom using poor sources, and are doing more to sway the point of view of the article than those who are constructively editing it. Please stop. Tony Fox (speak) 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh... no. Actually I haven't touched this article. You're confusing me with the "Mr. Anonymous And Very Insistent IP", and by the way, treating anonymous users with disdain due to their anonymity is hardly in keeping with Wikipedia ethics; it's a perfectly acceptable choice to remain anonymous (although it's not technically anonymity anyway) rather than create an account. - 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And good job evading my assertion that you're incapable of maintaining NPOV towards the article. "Overemphasize" is your POV, not fact. You can't even string together a coherent argument, you're just trying to stop anyone from editing the article in a manner that makes it less favourable of your lifestyle. - 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for the confusion. I see, however, that the two of you have connected in other places. Coincidence, ne? At any rate, I leave this for others to deal with at this point. Tony Fox (speak) 05:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
From the talk page of the linked article [7] : I'm not sure. Is it not true? If it is true, then we should probably say it, as it is relevant to the page. WikiFur isn't about whitewashing the fandom, after all. It could perhaps do with qualification of exactly how much of a minority it is, or give examples of prominent people (such as Manawolf) who advocate it as a practice. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Note that GreenReaper is the admin of wikifur. I would also hardly call Wikifur a poor source on the furry fandom. 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I’d call any Wiki source poor. Wiki sites are, for the most part, maintained by fans and are as changeable as the wind. How can you quote a source that might say something completely different tomorrow? It’s my understanding that we’re supposed to be quoting reputable publications like newspapers and such. We’re not supposed to be quoting fan sites or Wiki sites. Especially a relatively new one like Wikifur that hasn’t had much of a chance to get much input on its pages yet.
Now, in regard to the note that was left on my talk page by, I assume you’re upset that I took out the link to Wikifur’s Bestiality page. In the first place, I’m a little miffed at the whole situation, because I didn’t realize I’d been taken off site to Wikifur, and I thought I was looking at a Wikipedia page that had been vandalized. This caused me to make an edit over at Wikifur that I maybe shouldn’t have, and I really resent that kind of trickery.
Even so, I gave your edit fare consideration. It was not relevant. We have a section on “Sex and the Fandom” in which such issues are addressed. And what statistics we have put Bestiality at a whopping 1% of the fandom. Thus I see no reason why it deserves special mention. No one editor owns this page, and obviously more than one editor has determined that link irrelevant. Add to that the fact that you’re attitude is unconstructive, you insist on being anonymous and we have no idea who we’re dealing with, I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere in this dispute. Perri Rhoades 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Check

Firstly, I'm not and have not edited this article at any point other than to insert this tag. It seems to me that the majority of editors of this page are themselves furries and for the most part are doing an inadequate job of maintaining NPOV. - 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But you're, right? Anyways, you have to state what exactly is wrong with the article, "This article is not neutral" won't do. What is not neutral? What should be changed? --Conti| 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is as neutral as you are likely to find anywhere. We have quoted our sources, we double check each other’s impartiality to the point of causing extreme headaches, and we suffer from constant vandalism that makes it difficult to distinguish between vandalism and legitimate edits.
Yes, most of us are Furries. Who else would know where to find the info to compile for the article? We’ve done our best to accommodate bigots who want to include unsubstantiated rumors, hateful points of view, and false ties to things that have nothing to do with the subject of this page. We’ve even put up with the page being merged with another page that we have documentation proving is not supposed to be lumped into the fandom.
I regard this claim of impartiality as just another attack from an uninformed person who reads this page with prejudice. Perri Rhoades 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perri Rhoades, please assume good faith, the mainstream view of the furry fandom doesn't identify plushophilia, fursuits and sexual aspects as being separate and/or unrelated from furries; you might dismiss this as ignorance, which may be fair comment, but regardless Wikipedia isn't here to function as your public relations outlet and must state the facts, which like it or not includes these views. This is not bigotry.
ContiE, the purpose of the POV-Check tag is to call attention to articles which may not conform to NPOV guidelines, not as a method of settling disputes. I've explained my reasons for believing this article is POV, and they're legitimate. If I was able to detail specific examples of bias in the article I could just flag statements and sections. The problem is with the overall article and it's downplaying or omission of certain aspects of furry fandom (i.e. ones that could be regarded as unsavoury) that the majority of the article's editors would rather not have associated with furries and, by extension, themselves. - 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We have links in the article to the worst mainstream depictions of the fandom imaginable. No one is trying to silence the misinformation in the mainstream media. We have practically an entire section devoted to it. You’re argument doesn’t hold water. Perri Rhoades 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact you dismiss the mainstream view of furry fandom as misinformation rather than accepting it as something which should play a major role in the article only serves as an example of my original point. Where sexual aspects are mentioned, they are treated as a misconceptions rather than legitimate aspects of the fandom - which they are. - 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sexual aspects of the fandom are neither proven nor disproved. What we have here is a classic example of the argument. Furries claim innocence, you claim we’re guilty of something that isn’t common in every other fandom. Neither of us has any substantial proof. Thus, to be impartial, the article must present both sides of the argument. That’s what it does. What you’re trying to do is make it impartial by blowing the sexual aspects all out of proportion. You’re the one who’s pushing a POV. And it’s not going to fly. Perri Rhoades 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article has to present both sides, this is exactly what I'm saying. However, I don't believe that it currently does and that the sexual aspects have been marginalised, you believe otherwise. As these are both opinions neither one can claim to be correct. However what you and other editors have to stop doing is repeatedly reverting legitimate and cited edits as has happened on this article in the past. Once that happens and impartial editors are allowed to edit without being reverted everytime they say something that you personally disagree with, this article will be closer to NPOV. - 22:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar. The article does talk about plushophilia and other stuff, and it correctly states that the media focused on these parts of the fandom, while the majority of the fandom does not like that. Are you disputing any of this, or do you just want more "Furries are pervs"-like stuff in the article? Oh, and edits like these just don't help your reputation at all, by the way. --Conti| 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"the majority of the fandom does not like that" Can you cite evidence to support this, or is it merely your POV? - 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite that the majority of the fandom likes to be portrayed that way? I can simply ask everyone I know, but of course there's no study in Science about it, if that's what you mean. --Conti| 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well exactly, I'm not trying to claim that the majority of the fandom likes to be potrayed that way in the slightest, but I do feel it's a significant aspect which is being deliberately undervalued in this article due to personal opinions. Asking everyone you know would obviously be original research which as you should know is prohibited, yet you're effectively violating Wikipedia policy by accepting your opinions, such as this one, as facts. - 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The media displays it as a significant aspect, we write that, we have sources for that. We don't have sources that say that it actually is a significant aspect, so we won't write that. You see, you can play that game both ways. It's always fascinating how much anons know about policies. --Conti| 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Almost, but not quite. How can you differentiate between what the media (i.e. our sources) suggest is a significant aspect and what is a significant aspect? In this case, you're using your POV and original research, thus the necessitating of the POV-Check. Take the Vanity Fair article[8] for example; it portrays furry fandom in a predominantly sexual nature, but rather than use that as a source of information of the fandom, you've (and I mean that term collectively, not you specifically) used your own POV to interpret it as a source of bias in the media. Do you understand how this is POV on your (again, collectively) part? -

I refer you to Peter Cat's FAQ.

This is written by a TV news person and says right in the first paragraph to take media depictions of the fandom with a grain of salt. Do you want me to flood this page with citations that say the same thing? The internet is full of them.

Thus, if we say these depictions are refuted, which is all we do, rather than claiming them untrue, we have citations to back it up. What have you got? Perri Rhoades 22:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you even reading my comments? It's perfectly fine to use this to counter mainstream viewpoints and balance the article, however you can't use this as your starting point because what you're then doing is giving preference to these sources over others (such as the Vanity Fair one) to support your personal POV. You can't just decide which sources are accurate and which need to be taken with a grain of salt to suit yourself; you need to treat both sides fairly. - 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My point of view is never expressed in the article. We link the media presentation and say that fans dispute it. There is no editorializing at all. If anything, the media gets 5 hours of video and text linkage to a single line that says the fans dispute it. How is that being bias towards our side of the arguement? Perri Rhoades 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The bias exists because these views are being presented in the article itself and attempts to do so have been overridden repeatedly. External links only are inadequate. I mean just look at the uncivility I've gotten as a response to merely suggesting that the article be not be NPOV. - 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, one of the first things required is that the opening paragraph reflects both the views of the mainstream and the furry community, preferably with approximate equal importance. As it is, the mainstream view has been completely omitted. I notice there have been attempts to do this previously which have been reverted and met with hostility and accusations of vandalism. - 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But where would be the difference if it would be the other way around? Then the Vanity Fair article would be the starting point, although it is as POV as Peter Cat's FAQ. On Wikipedia, stuff usually is written like "X is Foo [Source]", but when something is disputed, it goes like "Source says, X is Foo", to make it clear that only a certain source says this, and that it is not a universally accepted fact. In this case, it is disputed that Vanity Fair writes is NPOV, so we write the latter. In a way, all of our articles contain original research, when you define "Writing more prominently about some sources" as original research. There's simply no other way to do stuff, and that's what these talk-pages are for. --Conti| 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep assuming that because I'm not in favour of one approach, I must automatically be for the opposite. It's quite possible to treat both viewpoints somewhat equally. - 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that assumption is wrong. It's just that 99% of all anons who comment here are like that, you kinda get used to it. :) I wouldn't mind a NPOV sentence or two about the relationship between the media and the fandom, maybe linking to the "Sex and furry fandom" section. But I'd advice anyone to discuss and gather consensus to a change on the article's lead here, so we won't get another edit war. I don't think these viewpoints should be treated equally, like writing 3 sentences about the fandom and 3 about how the media sees the fandom, that just looks like a bit too much. --Conti| 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

About removing things in the intro. Those things are removed because they’re already addressed in the proper section. The intro is merely a quick explanation of what the fandom is. The sexual issue is an argument that is fully addressed in its own section, and is not to be made repetitive. This is just good editing.Perri Rhoades 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, no no no. That is NOT good editing, that's bowdlerisation. The opening paragraph should showcase both viewpoints, and repetition is not a problem here either as the lead section is meant to be a summary of the overall article. Any regular contributer should already know this. This is a perfect example of why this article is POV. - 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that’s just you’re point of view. I happen to know there is a large contingent of the mainstream media that thinks Progressive Rock is a load of pretentious over blown non-sense. Go over to that page and see if you can get the mainstream view in the intro. If it works over there I might start to think you’ve got a point. In the meantime, you’ll just have to defer to the majority of the editors on this page. Perri Rhoades 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not my point of view. It's Wikipedia guidelines and your progressive rock argument is a strawman fallacy. - 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I’m just asking you to show precedent. You are saying the popular media view must be in the into. I’m telling you that the popular media view is not in the intro of the progressive rock page. It’s being run by fans who spew a view of their fandom contrary to the media portrayal to their heart’s content. But you are not running over there to chastise them. Why? Most likely because you have no pet gripe against progressive rock. But you do seem to have a pet gripe against furry fandom. Therefore, if you don’t chastise the progressive rock team equally, your impartiality comes into question. Perri Rhoades 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As much as I am not inclined to agree with random anons, they have a point. Perri, please do not argue that just because someone has to complain about one instance, they have to go fighting battles all over Wikipedia. I do not think you can win any arguments that way. "Why aren't you doing it to [group X] who is also doing [complained action Y]" is never a good argument. Instead, fix Y, then talk about X.
For better or for worse, the lead section (please, read it! :-) is all that many people will read by default, and so it is right that it has some mention of a factor that has been an issue for much of the fandom's lifetime. As it says, this section "...should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer (what editors can agree are...) the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies." [my highlights]
I do not think it is inaccurate to say that a significant proportion of the popular media has portrayed the furry fandom as a group of sexual fetishists. We don't have to agree that they're right to do so - or that they're wrong - just that they have portrayed it in that manner. Technically, it's a judgment call to say that this was the portrayal, too, but I don't think it's one that anyone disagrees with, right? Nor do I think it is inaccurate to say that some people find the furry fandom interesting because of this. That is the reason it has seven paragraphs in the article. For these reasons, it should be mentioned in the lead section, so that people who are interested read on and learn more about it. GreenReaper 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"As much as I am not inclined to agree with random anons", I don't get why people have this attitude. If you agree or disagree with something, it shouldn't make any difference who said it. - 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it confusing who anon editors are. There's this "fursecution vandal" that has a lot of IPs. I'm assuming that's not Then there's a bunch of other ones. As for the whole POV stuff of the article, well Wikifur mentions some conspiracies both anti-furry and those based on furries. One is the furlumanti, a group that hides sexual stuff about furries. It then links to another site and the accussation resembles the one of a wikipedia cabal (stuff started by Daniel Brandt), but saying there's a smaller, furry version. DyslexicEditor 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I'm not the "fursecution vandal", as I said I haven't even edited this article other than to insert the POV-Check. - 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these pages should be taken seriously. Although, according to the Furliminati article, I'm their leader! Errr.. Muahahaha, I guess. But indeed, when more than one person edits from an IP it can get quite confusing. --Conti| 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you’re the leader we can’t really use it, can we? That would be original research, wouldn't it? How much do you want to bet my name ends up on that article in a day or so? Perri Rhoades 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read (or read for the first time perhaps) No original research. It's not original research to add your own findings or conclusions provided it's from an external reliable source, e.g. you're more than permitted to use your own research if it so happens that you wrote a book/article/etc. on the subject, which is considered a credible source. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you're very unfamiliar with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. - 00:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, that was meant as humor, based on the ridiculousness of the sources being cited. And, for you’re information, I happen to be the writer of a rather long work on this subject which has already attained enough credibility to have been licensed for translation into other languages. So, what are you telling me? All this time I’ve been avoiding using my own research I could have been using it? I could have been referencing my own publications? I don’t think that would fly. And even if it did, I don’t think it would be fair.
I'm tired of this. If you want to leave the impartiality warning sign there, fine. I think every Wikipedia page ought to have one by default, given the fallible nature of this system. But it’s not going to get us to trash the page for you. Nor will you personally be allowed to trash the page without reputable citations and the blessing of the collective editors.
I didn’t whine nearly as much as you have when those videos were linked. But I relented to the judgment of the other editors. Now it's your turn to be gracious and relent. Perri Rhoades 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Relent to what? To allow you continue to revert perfectly legitimate edits and accuse those making them of vandalism? Certainly not. It's about time some editors of this page ease up and stop letting their personal opinions distort the article. The "blessing of the collective editors" is not a requirment in order to edit an article thankfully; you've been using this tactic to keep individuals from adding anything that you dislike and frankly it's unacceptable. Perhaps you'll now think twice before trying to maintain your grip over the page in future and it can be edited more freely, without risking hostility and accusations from the group of people trying to monopolise the article. If not, it's just going to end up in and edit war and RfCs are going to be necessary. - 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the “Good Faith” article you linked. It says you’re not supposed to antagonize people, which you did when you came in here and accused a collective of nobody knows how many editors of impartiality. It further says I’m supposed to be nice to you because you’re a newbie who hasn’t learned how things work around here. Well, you’ve not filled in your user info yet. So you must be a newbie, right? Perhaps I have not been as patient with you as I should have. Personal attacks such as you launched off with do tend stretch my patience, as the “Good Faith” page told you they would. Under the circumstances, I will be gracious and apologize if I have treated you without the proper decorum.

Now the “Good Faith” page says I must explain to you kindly why you are wrong, and why we thus can not accommodate the edit you desire to make. If you will look down towards the bottom of the page, you will see a list of cited documents. These are the documents that form the basis of the article. If you will look above on the talk page you will see we have debated the relevancy of said documents. You will see that we do not always agree, but we are a team, and we do our best to make reasonable compromises.

One of the things that has been discussed and debated frequently is the very issue you have raised - how to present the media position, the fan position and all other realities regarding furry fandom in proper proportion. At this point, the article makes mention of every defamatory piece of media that has ever been created about the fandom to our knowledge. Not only that, we have links to as many of these pieces of media as are available, which is not something most other furry reference pages can claim. Surely if we were biased, as you suggest, we would not have these.

All these negative representations are collected in a special section. That section is entitled “Sex and the Fandom.” When the intro is short, as it is now, within a few paragraphs of reading, the viewer comes to a little box, in which he will immediately see links to every issue the page deals with. That is the overview, and the sex section is quite prominent in that list. Therefore, what you are asking for has already been provided. And regardless of what you may think, most page teams pride themselves on avoiding repetition.

Now, as you are new, I will forgive you for impugning my character. If you would like to join the team and help out with page, that’s fine. But you must realize that you are joining a team, and that you must be respectful of your team mates. When you encounter this kind of opposition to something you want to do, you must realize that you do not have the authority to bully the team. You must communicate what you want concisely, and if we explain to you that this is not needed because it has already been provided, you must endeavor to appreciate our position. After all, we can’t have everything we want, can we?

Now, that I have made this attempt to treat you in “Good Faith,” will you not prove my good faith warranted by discontinuing this dispute? Trust that the defamation of the fandom is well enough assured by the article as it stands. After viewing all those video and articles that we’ve linked, no one is going to believe a word that is said about how fans dispute that image. We have all but destroyed our own fandom in the name of impartiality. And, under the circumstances, it’s rather unkind of you to mock that impartiality by insisting that we haven’t done enough.

So, please be nice and accept our “Good Faith” that we are impartial editors, and that, if you take the time to study the facts, you will see that the article we are constructing is indeed impartial. Perri Rhoades 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I realise that Perri has apparently left us, but for the record I've been editing Wikipedia on-and-off since 2004, I've made a conscious decision not to register, which is a perfectly acceptable choice and I should not be treated with disdain because of that. Interestingly, I also notice that Perri's first edit was made on the 7th of May, 2006, which in my opinion makes him a comparatively new editor here, unless he - like myself - has been editing here for sometime without an account. I also refute the idea that suggesting an article is POV qualifies as being antagonising or making personal attacks. I think I've been perfectly civil - 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You said that the sexual aspects of furry fandom are negative. Some may think they are positive aspects. Actually, many do -- just look at the web. DyslexicEditor 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DyslexicEditor's above statement about sexual aspects of the genre. Some sexual parts of it I believe are positive, and this should not be ignored. At the same time however, we don't want to be seen as a bunch of perverts, or rather furverts. We are just people who are interested in this kind of artwork.

On the matter on if this article is balanced, it might help if the article contained a short paragraph on criticism, so that the article shows the both sides of the arguement. Some articles do have a criticism section, including subcultures and fandoms. ISD 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't selectively choose which aspects of the fandom to ignore and which to use. "we don't want to be seen as a bunch of perverts" I'm afraid this is exactly why this article is POV; editors that are also furries have been reverting legitimate edits which they feel may portray them in a negative light. A criticism section shouldn't even be necessary if people would stop trying to skew the article; it's not like there's actually any criticism of furries in on large scale anyway, just differing opinions on the matter - a furry might simply consider themselves a fan of anthropomorphic artwork, someone else might consider furries to be a bunch of perverts, if you're going to edit this article you can't just dismiss one of those views based on personal opinion. You have to try and be somewhat more clinical and neutral. - 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand you're viewpoint, but when I said, "We don't want to be seen as a bunch of perverts," I meant it in the sense that the article should not go too far the other way. At the moment the article may be considered to be too favourable to furries, but then again it should not appear too biased against them as well. The article should include information on some peoples negative views on furries, but not taken beyond the stage when it becomes biased in the other direction. After all, the entire point of this debate is to make the article fair for everyone, furries and non-furries. ISD 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have problems with the article, why not be bold and fix them? 17:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm not sure I'd know where to start really. I only put the tag on there because the article seemed to be getting monopolised by a group of people, and editors outside that group were having their edits reverted unfairly - I'm sure I've gone over this enough now. Hopefully this shouldn't be the case now. I'm not demanding that people should start editing the article to reflect my views or anything; I just added the tag as I felt was necessary and stated my reasons (as is required) and it ended up sparking off this debate. - 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed somebody took out info on MTV and Drew Carrey (and I'm sure more that I've forgotten). I think all media references should be listed (or else just a note to say "for more media references, see wikifur"). DyslexicEditor 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if the 'Vanity Fair' article is going to be mentioned, then in the interest of NPOV it should also be mentioned that George Gurley interviewed FoxWolfie Galen and Katherine Gates after he couldn't find enough weirdness at the convention. As much as our critics love to bring up this bit of yellow journalism to try to link furry fandom to various fetishes, they somehow always fail to mention the fact that these people weren't even at the convention.

According to the article itself, Gurley visited and interviewed FoxWolfie Galen two months before the convention (it does not state when Katherine Gates was interviewed). Is there reason to believe that this is incorrect? GreenReaper 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the article, when Gurley interviewed Katherine Gates she was "sitting down in the living room of her Brooklyn Heights apartment, where she lives with her husband."
I also found a quote from FoxWolfie Galen himself on AFF: "I absolutely do not agree with how the Vanity Fair article turned out. It is There are things in there that I did not say, and many other things that are twisted. They conveniently omitted the several times that I specifically said that my plushophilia has nothing to do with the furry fandom as practiced by most other people." —Xydexx 06:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One also might question whether CSI—a fictionalized television show—should be considered a reliable source of information on furry fandom. Getting information on furry fandom from CSI is like claiming Gilligan's Island was a documentary, and I'm not sure that really has a place in an encyclopedic entry on furry fandom. —Xydexx 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be considered a reliable source of information on the public portrayal of furry fandom in the entertainment media. Its inclusion within this article is fine as long as that is what it is being used as a reference for. Anything else is probably pushing it - for example, its portrayal of fursuits as an essential part of every convention-goer's kit is something that is refuted in other sources. GreenReaper 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: MTV's Plushies And Furries schlockumentary was also faked and cannot be considered a reliable source of information. Even Rick Castro himself admits "this scene is more about fantasy, art and role playing than it is about poking a poodle." —Xydexx 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference says parts were faked and others weren't. I think we should include this here with link to video then link to sources and say exactly what the source said were faked (and add other sources on it, too). DyslexicEditor 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New sections

I have created sections on the anti-furry and anti-yiff movements in an attempt to make the article have a more balanced viewpoint. This therefore gives both sides of the arguement. ISD 08:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have serveral problems with these additions. "Anti-yiff" and "Anti-furry" are both kinda POV titles. is certainly not "anti-yiff" just because they don't allow adult artwork. Crushyiffdestroy isn't even a furry site, and as far as I know, they love to show all the perverted furry stuff. The burned fur movement wasn't solely an anti-yiff movement either. It was one of their goals to reduce the sexual stuff, of course. But it wasn't their goal to completely eliminate everything sexual. Not calling this section "anti-yiff" would solve a few of these problems, and I think writing about the burned furs somewhere in the article is a good idea.
Now for the "Anti-furry" section: Calling every anti-furry a troll is way too POV. The mention of the editing of the Wikipedia article is an unneeded self-reference. Both sections don't look very neutral to me, and references for such controversial sections would be really helpful. --Conti| 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote the sections, I tried to keep it as neutral as possible. However, quite a bit was changed by another user, User:Dr. Righteous. I'm fairly new to the furry scene, so I must confess I don't know all the facts, but of what I did know, I tried to keep as fair as I could. ISD 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The changes by User:Dr. Righteous are quite POV in many cases, and I think require some scrutiny. The 'troll' bit is very problematic. I do note that the section titles are a problem, as Conti pointed out above. Perhaps they could be condensed into a 'Criticisms' section instead, and have the negativity removed. (I wonder if it's actually important to link to the Burned Furs revival attempt, as well.) Tony Fox (speak) 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the original edits by ISD are also not that neutral, an anti-furry is not known as a "mundane", for example. Yerf and crushyiffdestroy are mentioned in the original edit as well. A criticism section would be nice, althoug it might overlap with the "sex and furry" section. --Conti| 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A LiveJournal group with six members doesn't seem like much of a reference to me, either. If you look at the posts on there, it's just one guy trying to stir up trouble rather than an organized movement. GreenReaper 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologise if I appeared biased. I'm fairly new to the fandom, so maybe I did not express the content correctly. ISD 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Righteous has just done another mod to these sections that I'm fairly impressed with. A lot of the POV commentary has been removed, though the anti-furry section still needs work, as it does seem to attack the subjects of that portion of the article. It's a good start, though. (Hey, Dr. Righteous? Looks like you're making some good edits - how about joining the conversation?) Tony Fox (speak) 04:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Righteous been going back to his bad editing again. DyslexicEditor 10:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Correction, he's actually WORSE! DyslexicEditor 12:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the numerous "disputed" flags going up all over the page now, I'd like to make a few observations:

  • First and foremost, what this article should really contain is material that answers the question "What is furry fandom?" To that end, a full disclosure of all the drama involved really isn't necessary. Assume that the article is being written toward people who, at best, have a casual, passing knowledge of what the topic is, and may not know anything about it at all. Include information that someone would need to have to know what the term means, without going into unnecessarily tangential details.
  • Secondly, while the article for furvert may at one point have been merged in, I agree that a lot of that material is POV and doesn't really belong in this article. The term itself is not an especially common one outside of furry fandom, to the best of my knowledge. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary; at best, I think the term merits a passing mention.
  • The Internet Criticisms section really is, IMHO, heavily POV-biased. I'm not convinced that the material merits inclusion at all in its current form; to me, it comes across as preemptively defensive and smacks of "everyone's picking on us so we need to win sympathy to our side!" Based on other articles, a more appropriate section (combining in the Media Coverage section) might be "Furry Fandom in Popular Culture" and contain information similar to the following:
    "Early portrayals of furry fandom in popular media were sensationalistic [include references to a couple of such portrayals here, such as Wired, Vanity Fair, or CSI] and focused on fetishistic aspects of the genre. More recent portrayals have included less sensational descriptions of furry fandom [include references such as KDKA-TV and Pittsburgh City Paper]." It doesn't need to be long, and it certainly doesn't need a lot of drama to it.
The Something Awful/Portal of Evil/Encyclopedia Dramatica type references are really just drama and don't add much to a neutral description of the fandom.
  • Along the same line (see prec.), the Sex and Furry Fandom section comes across as a tempest in a teapot. It feels like there's, again, a lot of preemptive defensiveness involved ("We're not as bad as everyone says! Really! See, here are lot of measures that we're taking to prove it!"). I think that the material needs to be pared down a lot, and quite possibly not separated out into its own section, in order to establish a more neutral tone.
  • I'm, honestly, rather confused about Dr. Righteous' approach. S/He has stated that the Internet Criticism section contains "at the very least personal research, at worst complete fantasy" and should be verified or deleted—which I don't entirely disagree with, admittedly—but, at the same time a good deal of the material in the section was specifically added by him/her in the first place (although it's currently in a somewhat edited form; it still contains the basic germ). If the section is, at best, personal research, then why, I have to wonder, did s/he add information to it in the first place?

In short, the article right now seems to be a lot of "yes they are"/"no we aren't" arguing. Rather than adding point after point on both sides of a, frankly, relatively minor issue, the article should have, at best, a very quick summary of either side, with appropriate references, and have that be the end of it. --Dajagr 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question about why I edited what is currently called the Internet Criticism section and why I am now condemning my own work. When I started working on this section, I believed there was truth to it. In the course of working on this matter I have done a lot of searching for citations to justify this section. My search turned up far more severe anti-anime sentiments than anti-furry documents. I now believe this whole business is a myth. In respect to hate groups on the net, there is nothing going on in furry fandom that is not going on in every other fandom. They all have people who hate them, ridicule them and troll their boards. The notion that furries get the worst of this simply can’t be born out.
I freely admit that everything I added to the section was personal research that I expected to be able to find citations to justify. This was a mistake. I bought into a lie that the other editors were pushing. There is no verification, because there is simply no truth to any of this. The section should be deleted.
Furthermore, I turned up no evidence of pornographic material in furry fandom that is not paralleled or dwarfed by the pornographic output of other fandoms. In particular, anime fandom dwarfs furry fandom in every respect. Yet, the Wikipedia anime article focuses on anime strictly as an art form. No attempt is made to portray anime fandom as a fetish based culture, no attention is given at all to anime hate groups, no attention is given to anime bad press, etc.
I believe what we have here is a case of misinformation being promoted and accepted as fact on a mass scale. And I believe Wikipedia is being used to further the course of this misinformation. I can find no reliable documentation that there is any difference between furry fandom, anime fandom, video game fandom, science fiction fandom or any other similar fandom - other than the fact that sites like Wikipedia are more willing to buy into popular myths about furry fandom and thus treat it differently. Great care should be taken in the future to prevent unsubstantiated myths from entering the article simply because we have all heard them so often we assume they’re true. Dr. Righteous 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Parting statement

Since it seems some people here won’t do me the courtesy of allowing me to retract my part of this dispute, it looks like you will have to hear from me one more time. Though, with the addition of that last citation, I am officially no longer an editor here. Which, by the way, means that if any of you would like to drop by my site to look for citations, my work can no longer be considered personal research.

First I want to clarify the bit about progressive rock I made above, as the stress of these incessant attacks, while I was attempting to compose a new history section, really threw me off, and nothing I said under such stress should be taken too literally.

The point I was trying to make is that I learned the ropes about editing Wikipedia working with the team at the Progressive Rock page. They are pretty much in the same position we are in. They have a fandom that has a long history of being maligned by the mainstream media, and which even factions of the fandom disagree on the actual reality of things. Thus, they are a good comparative reference.

They have a very strong team over there that knows their business. That team does not put up with unwarranted repetition, they do not put up with people who don’t know the genre trying to put in misplaced terminology, and they certainly do not put up with prejudicial prog haters or outsiders who know nothing at all about the subject coming in an impugning the intro with remarks about how the mainstream media says prog is a pretentious music form for shameless egotists. Even if you’ve got a mainstream comment to that effect, it’s still going to be taken as vandalism and immediately deleted. They certainly are not going to accept as a citation a Wiki article that looks like it has been specifically doctored to give credence to a prejudicial statement. Which is what I judged the Wikifur link to be. No way no how was it a credible source, it was defamatory and an obvious troll maneuver. So it got wiped. That’s an editor’s job.

This does not go to point of view. This goes to the Wikipedia concept that the work of many editors over time will sort out the misinformation, even in the mainstream press, and eventually provide articles that are expressions of truth, rather than inaccurate expressions of popular myth. There is nothing in the Wikipedia concept about deliberately trying to portray the mainstream view or deliberately trying to provide misleading articles filled with the prejudices of sensationalistic journalism. Deliberately using a Wikipedia article to propagate such prejudice is an abuse of Wikipedia that results in the reputation Wikipedia is fast building for being an offensively inaccurate excuse for a legitimate resource. People who insist that we edit in this untruthful fashion are fast becoming the ruination of Wikipedia.

Anyway, my point in bringing up the Progressive Rock page was to illustrate that this is the first time I have ever seen Wikipedia editors attacked for doing their jobs. I realize it’s probably not a common thing to see a page having a dedicated team, but that’s something to be grateful for, not to condemn as impartial, simply because we seem to be unusually dedicated to our work. Certainly it is not the practice of Wikipedia to encourage pages to be edited by people with the least amount of knowledge and skill. Rather, the concept is that skillful and professional looking editing will be achieved over time. This can only be achieved if good editors consistently revert or redirect editing that is either sloppy, misleading or deliberately reflective of an inaccurate point of view. And bad editors who can’t get their work past more skilled editors should not be made to think they can keep their mistakes from being reverted or corrected by putting an impartiality banner across the top of the article.

All anonymous IP's in this discussion will here after be referred to by me as "Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP," because it is impossible to keep track of which comments came from which anonymous IP in a heated debate like this, and thus they all tend to blend together into a single non-descript entity who has no figures to back up his claims that he has been here at Wikipedia for any length of time, or that he does not have something to hide by not providing at least a name that his posts can easily be distinguished by. Whether Wikipedia endorses this kind of anonymity or not, it is still trollish behavior that impedes discussion and puts everyone else at a disadvantage, and therefore I have long given up on being able to maintain any clear memory of which anonymous IP said what and lumped them into a team of what I suspect to be an unreasonable group of card carrying furbashers called “Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP.” If you think this defies "Good Faith," tough noogies. People who were treating the rest of us with "Good Faith" wouldn't put us at the disadvantage of struggling to remember which comments came from which non-descript group of numbers.

Assuming that Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP did not come over to Wikipedia from SA or some other notorious hate group with the two other anonymous vandals that have been assaulting this page, what Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP claims to have observed going on here was nothing more than the regular editing team of this page doing their job, struggling to keep vandals from putting erroneous, repetitive and unsubstantiated comments on the page.

Furthermore, there was no reason for Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP to assume that the edits being consistently reverted were reflective of reality unless he already harbored prejudice against furry fandom and himself wanted to see that prejudice reflected in the article. He never invited or complied with any attempts to discuss the reality or non-reality of these edits. He came in boldly stating that these edits had to be included, regardless of any reasoning or references the team could show to the effect that those edits did not belong.

I submit to you that, if talented editors who understand something of journalistic professionalism must suffer this kind of condemnation for doing a good job, Wikipedia will lose all its good editors who will throw their hands up at the futility of it all and walk out, as I have. And no one will be left in the end but anonymous haters and inexperienced editors who will turn Wikipedia into what many are now already claiming it to be - the sorriest excuse for a serious reference source that has ever been created.

Of course, Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP will now come back with his repetitive accusation that I am not an impartial editor. An accusation which he seems unable to prove and thinks he can make reality if he repeats it often enough. Yet he has not produced one citation to show how anything in the article is untrue or out of proportion.

Assuming in “Good Faith” that Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP is not just a troll who’s doing this for no other reason than to get me off the page, because the application of the knowledge I possess is detrimental to his cause of furbashing, what we must have here is a case of Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP not knowing what to make of an editor who actually knows his subject and can lay his hands readily on citations that support ideas he’s never heard before. One of those ideas being that there’s a heck of a lot more to furry fandom than what has been reflected in the few outdated depictions he’s seen. And if he had come to the talk page first and asked for them, he could have been presented with newer media representations that denounce the old portrayals and acknowledge furry fandom for the legitimate fandom that it is.

Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP claims that he has been courteous to me throughout this whole business. That is not true. He did not approach me in a civil manner and query as to my impartiality. He came to my talk page and attacked me with a bold statement that he had judged me impartial and was going to put a stop to my wicked ways. And he has continued to do this throughout the whole dispute. I have tried being nice to him. I have tried being logical with him. I have tried being slightly cross with him. But nothing I say will get it through to him that he is uneducated on this topic and has no reference to judge impartiality. He just keeps saying I am impartial and refuses to actually discuss the relevant subject matter. This is classic, textbook, troll behavior. And if Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP is not a troll, he should stop going out of his way to come off like one.

I will call your attention once again to the large amount of citations on the page. If Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP would read the citations, he might begin to realize that whatever prejudice he has picked up from one or two media sources is not supported by all media sources. He might also realize the furry fandom is on the edge of becoming a mainstream demographic, and thus the media and big business are starting to take it more seriously. Read here quotes from an article in The Financial Times and a fan commentary as to its implications. Also observe some other linked non-condemning or fetish harping coverage.

I also call your attention to a journal entry by a fellow editor with links to media coverage of this year's anthro con. These far outweigh the relevance of a Vanity Fair article that is several years old and widely disputed. And they certainly outweigh a fictional episode of a cheesy TV crime drama. These are the kinds of realistic coverage we should be linking to the article. To insist that we stay with outdated coverage is anything but being impartial. This, by itself, should be enough evidence to prove that it is not the regular editors of this page who are impartial. It is Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP who is uninformed and pushing an unsubstantiated POV.

I’m sorry Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP, but the age of the prejudicial views you keep harping on is on its way out. It is not a forgone conclusion that any majority of the mainstream media views furries as sexual deviants or places any emphasis on furry sexuality. Rather it is becoming increasingly normal in the media to see sympathy for furries who have been persecuted and wrongly accused.

There is no reason for the editors of this page to put up with vandalism from irrational furry haters who can’t accept reality, anymore than there would be need for the maintainers of a page on Judaism to give space to the rantings of Neo-Nazis. This is a time when people, furry and non-furry, will be coming to this page for honest facts about the fandom - what it’s about, where it came from, what it’s based on, what’s the attraction, and yes, what controversies have been associated with the fandom, which we have given an entire section of exploration.

It is entirely unjustified that we be asked to include prejudicial opinions with repetitive over prominence. And it is irrational that Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP continually blows off the unnecessary over prominence we have already given to that subject matter. He has no concept of the fandom or what proportion sex and controversial issues actually play in it. And there is no justification for him trying to stop more experienced and knowledgeable people from putting things in their proper perspective - especially when they have citations to back up everything they’ve said.

You were lucky enough to have an editor here who knows a lot of those honest facts and was willing to take the time to add them. But you don’t have him anymore, thanks to the needless headache you gave me over this. I have writing of my own that’s not getting done while I defend myself against your impugning of my efforts on behalf of this page. And the headache you’ve caused by this insult is not going away too quickly. Thus I have judged Wikipedia bad for my health and it is now minus one editor who had more to offer than you’ll ever know.

If you think this is what the creators of Wikipedia had in mind for a proper use of their rules, you must think Wikipedia was indeed designed to be an evil thing that masquerades as a real encyclopedia, but is actually meant to be a venue of propagating popular prejudice and general stupidity. You need all the talented editors you can get. But people with serious talent, experience and skill generally don't have time to put up with this kind of disrespect and impish BS. People actually get paid for the kind of work we donate to Wikipedia, and most people with marketable skills are not inclined to donate significant time to an unappreciative institution. Thus, Wikipedia is doomed to fail if trolls and vandals are allowed to hide behind rules and render serious editors impotent. Why would anyone with any talent at all want to waste his valuable time on a project that values trolls more than honest editors?

That’s all. I’m gone. You can’t accuse me of maintaining the article improperly if I’m not on the team. So just drop it. Or go on impugning my impartiality, if you have nothing better to do. But I won’t be hearing you. I have more important work to attend to. I’m out of here. Perri Rhoades 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Expansion Perri Rhoades 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. Anonymous And Changeable IP claims that he has been courteous to me throughout this whole business. That is not true. He did not approach me in a civil manner and query as to my impartiality. He came to my talk page and attacked me with a bold statement that he had judged me impartial and was going to put a stop to my wicked ways." Not sure what this is referring to, this[9] perhaps? In any case I did not edit his talk page at any point, and in that particular example it's obviously not me as for clarification I already stated that I am not that particular user at the beginning of this discussion[10], and have already mentioned several times now that I have not even edited this article other than to insert the NPOV-check tag (which makes it even harder for me to understand why Perri is getting so upset over a difference of opinion).
It sounds like the editors on the progressive rock page may also be guilty of POV editing. It's all very well saying this is where you learned how an article should be edited, but - if what you said is accurate - that's not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and not the way Wikipedia was intended to be contributed to.
On the topic of original research: as I previously said, it's perfectly OK to use your own research - provided it's published elsewhere first [11]. It also has to be credible and verifiable, and essays hosted on your own website probably don't qualify as such. The fact you no longer consider yourself an editor has no bearing on this matter one way or the other.
And again for the record I think I've been very civil throughout the debate, for the most part, whilst receiving a fair deal discourtesy and insults for my efforts - mostly from Perri, and despite what he may think I have no agenda against furries. - 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have no agenda against furries, I think you should stop trying to get misinformation incorporated into Wikipedia articles. Others have attempted this a few months ago because they thought it was "fun" to make us waste our time correcting the inaccuracies. Deliberately adding misinformation to articles is, in fact, considered vandalism and is against Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia made headlines of having a credibility problem a few months ago due to people who had nothing better to do than add misinformation to the articles. Let's not have a repeat of that. —Xydexx 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the IP is a furry with a different perspective of the fandom. I also think they should make an account. DyslexicEditor 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
And when did I deliberately add misinformation to the article? I'm aware of Wikipedia policy regarding vandalism, and what I've done (raised the issue of NPOV on an article's talk page) is in no-way vandalism. - 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
OH NOES, YOU'RE LEAVING WIKIPEDIA 4EVER! Too bad noone cares because you are a basement-dwelling nerd with no friends or life. 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) aka Mr. Anonymous IP Blarrghh whatever
WP:V; WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA and WP:DICK please. Tony Fox (speak) 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:STFU please. 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the article:

Despite their wild image from Vanity Fair, MTV and CSI, furry conventions aren't about kinky sex between weirdos gussied up in foxy costumes,[1], but instead about people talking and drawing animals and comic-book characters in sketchbooks. [2]

It's quite POV, and I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a more neutral way. It's also somewhat redundant, Vanity Fair etc. are already mentionend a paragraph earlier, and it's already made clear by then that these media portrayals aren't that near to reality. Oh, and furry conventions aren't all about drawing animals, either. There's alot more to do. :) --Conti| 12:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the sentence as these are not POV statements, but in fact direct quotes from recently published articles on furry fandom. —Xydexx 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Then they should be marked as direct quotes, as they are now. It's POV to pretend that newspaper quotes are facts. It's pretty much the opinion of the newspaper article, as "Furries are people in fursuits having sex" is the opinion of (sadly, many) other articles. I'm fine with the way it is now. --Conti| 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought that quote came from the fursecution vandal, not a newspaper. What paper? It wasn't the Kimblery Hicks Free Times? DyslexicEditor 09:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Read the references and stop trolling, please. The article you link to is fake. --Conti| 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thing is I checked the references and I can't find the quote "Furries are people in fursuits having sex" so I figured it either was not actually said in a paper or was in the Kimblerly Hicks. Was the Kimblerly Hicks fake, you're sure? DyslexicEditor 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see here for an article discussing it. And as added corrobration, here's a link discussing the (and I quote) "sleepy burg of Richmond, Oregon". --Dajagr 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. DyslexicEditor 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for calling you a troll. I did not allude to any real paper with my quote, it's just the messasge that comes across when you watch the MTV or CSI stuff. --Conti| 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you forget how star trek and star wars fans are portrayed in the media. They'd probably prefer to be thought of as their fandom getting them laid. Even worse portrayal is the UFO convention people. DyslexicEditor 22:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that "getting laid" is generally percieved as a benefit, it is not so beneficial when half of the people concerned think that you are getting laid with a) animals, or b) plushies, as with a large proportion of media portrayals. :-) GreenReaper 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)