Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Furry redirect

To anyone wondering about the lack of a Furry article: the original article has been redirected to furry fandom as per agreement on the discussion page in the original furry article. If you wish to add/subtract/edit any information, please do so on the furry fandom page rather than trying to resurrect the Furry page. Thanks! -- Grumpyhan 04:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zootropic Paranoia

What is "Zootropic Paranoia" ? Google produces only this article for that term! If it is a term coined within this community, could it be briefly explained please? -- Tarquin

I've never heard of it. GreenReaper 04:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And, whatever it was, it's gone. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My Oct 6, 2003 change was not minor, sorry

Sorry, I forgot to untick the "minor edit" box. So I'm a noob. I've changed my preferences so it doesn't default to ticked. PeterCat 00:32, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Extensive edit/reorganization

This edit was an extensive reorganization of the article, bringing together related ideas and excising redundant material (and some weasel and non-NPOV language). "See Also" links were incorporated into the text as free links. PeterCat 03:59, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I would think weasel words would be encouraged on this particular topic --Calieber 18:49, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Is the quote "G*d Damned" accurate or has that censoring been done by the editor who put it in? If so, why is God censored rather than Damned? I'd suggest leaving it as "God Damned" unless the original was also censored. --Darac 14:55, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that Jewish? @_@ 85.226.122.237 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the sentence "The furry fandom is often depicted as being chiefly female. Given that most furry works, though adult level, tend to be lighter and more sentimental, many see reason to believe that the furry fandom evolved as a reaction to the male dominated testoterone fantasies prevalent the comics/SF/cartoon fandom.". I take part in the furry fandom and don't see significant more "female behaviour" than in any other community. --Conti 21:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Skiffy relationship?

I think the relationship of our fandom to scifi is tenuous at best. I've seen more fantasy elements in the fandom than scifi. Granted, aliens would kind of technically be furs (alien animals that are anthros.. kind of) in the same way that humans are kind of ape anthros.. But thats not where the fandom comes from and science fiction is a rather small subset. I'm recommending we remove the part that says we're a subset of the scifi fandom. - Augur 14 august 2004

Hmm, the reason why it is categorized as a sub-genre of scifi could be that the furry fandom started at sci-fi-conventions (correct me if I'm wrong). So it originated from the sci-fi genre, but you are of course correct that it is no sub-genre of sci-fi. Actually furry can be any kind of genre imaginable, but fantasy would be the most fitting one I think.

Oh, and please do not make such edits. If you disagree with something on an article just ask on the talk page or Be Bold and change the article the way you think is right. A "(Maybe??)" in an article does not look very professional. Thanks for mentioning this anyways! --Conti|✉ 09:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, furry originated from sci-fi. But, it no longer being there, has evolved more into a kind of medium than a genre. —Muke Tever 01:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Need for reorganization

This article is very unorganized. I realize it may be being neglected in favor of perfecting the Furry article, but when the two articles are merged (as seems to be the current consensus of what should be done) I hope the organization is a bit improved. -- Krishva 05:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Added A Second History Theory

I added a second theory to the history of the Fandom. I'm positive that it could have been linked further back to the mythology as not only in history would you see characteristics of that of a character of the Furry Fandom, but there is also recent art (as in the last 5-10 years) that also depicts Anubis which is AKA "Dark Desire" The matter could be looked into deeper, but I do not have the historical expertise to actually define it further, so it should be looked at in a historical perspective. Hope that helps ;)

I don't think that mythological creatures and deities really serve as a precedent to the furry fandom. That's some sort of fallacy, anyway. What furry fandom really has its start in is cartoons and comics and sci-fi. The stuff with Anubis et al might work better in the anthropomorphism article. That's why it's there. --Prangton 04:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually wait, let me elaborate a bit, I didn't mean to just shoot you down there and pull things out of my ass without explanation. The furry fandom is something very specific, which is why it's got its own article seperate from anthropomorphism, which covers the theory of giving something human characteristics, and funny animal slash talking animal which are two genres that have inspired the furry fandom but still exist independently from it. Now, at the time this mythology was formed, there wasn't a fandom to speak of, really. though I don't know, I'm not a historian. There were deities with animal heads and human/animal crossbreeds in mythology, but those are more a case of anthropomorphism than anything to do with the fandom created in the mid 80s. In other words, what I said above! --Prangton 04:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no "fandom" for animal-headed people in Greek/Egyptian/whatever times. Instances of anthropomorphism (beyond talking but otherwise nonhumanoid animals) were extremely uncommon. The only ones I can think of offhand are certain Egyptian dieties, the Minotaur, and a certain Sumerian harp that has a few satirical images of an "animal party" on it. In something like 3500 years of recorded history before the common era, that is not a lot. Certainly there was not a fandom for this kind of material at those times--or any time before the 20th century. The idea of fandom was incomprehensible to people who, for the most part, had to spend most of their time trying to get enough to eat. Furries can be said to have drawn inspiration from historical uses of anthropomorphism, but these are definitely not proof of the existance of an ancient furry fandom. -- Krishva 05:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. As it seems to be the case, I had a little bit of a hard time being able to read and understand the article (as the complaint of organization has already been made) but it could also be my incredibleness of being a bit of a n00b here as well. I didn't actually catch the link on anthropomorphism which does mention what I had suggested, so sorry for that. What did come as a surprise was no mention of Winnie the Pooh and Bucky O'Hare. Those are probably the oldest examples I can think of that I didn't catch in the article. I didn't edit that in there seeing as how fast a counter argument can crop up, so I just put the suggestion here for now to see what kind of comments are posted

Also, being a creative myself, I know that artists will always seek a form of inspiration which is why I figured that, at the very least, inspiration would trickle down from Greek, Roman and Egyptian based religions. I figured that the actual fandom online can be traced back to the 80's, but it left the possibility that some forms of it could have been floating around before the internet. The reason for the 80's date, I assumed, was because it could be traced back then online because it would have been digitally written down (so it would have been detectable through extensive online research) That was where I was coming from on my point, just to clarify that, though I missed the article that dealt with the idea, I'm not just going, "Hey, there's pictograms of those things too!"

So, just suggesting is all. :)

Trikster85

P.S. I just caught the paragraph that goes over historical citings. Sorry, I seem to be slow at getting the information to sink in. -.-

The definition of “Fandom” in most online dictionaries is “All the fans of a sport, an activity, or a famous person.” Note that this does not say anything about a fandom having to be organized, nothing about any fans knowing if any other fans of the same thing exist, or even if the world at large has any knowledge that a fandom exists. Hence, so long as there are fans of something, there is a fandom.

If there were fans of those characters by Aesop, there was a fandom. If there were fans of animal characters in fairytales, there was a fandom. These things are the roots of furry fandom. They are what its foundation is built on. Any accurate history will make mention of this.

Nothing happened in the 80’s except that a few of the furry fans that already existed got together and formed an organized presence. They were not the only furry fans. They represented only a small segment of the fandom, much of which still has yet to learn that a gathering of furry fans exists. Given the popularity and proliferation of anthropomorphic animal characters beginning before the turn of the twentieth century, it is a certainty that a fandom existed for these characters.

Unfortunately, the entire history and development of the genre would fill a heavy volume. For a Wikipedia article the history needs to be boiled down to significant highlights.

It is kind of ridiculous to have a page for a fandom without properly addressing the genre that the fandom honors, as if a fandom could exist if there were not something first to be a fan of. Perri Rhoades 08:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Could a registered user remove the fursuit link (which is different than fur culture), and replace it with something like http://www.twin.ne.jp/~akr_m/en/cg03 which is CC licensed? That should be fair for Wikipedia.

NPOV?

Look, by editing the picture back to a bunch of people in fursuits, and changing the wording of the page, you're not portraying a neutral expression. It is particularly worse when furry is redirecting here. While it's true that that IS a picture of people who most likely are into fur-fandom, It's not a particularly flattering one. A fursuit is not appropriate there, what about a picture, such as http://www.twin.ne.jp/~akr_m/img/akr173.jpg

It's creative Commons licensed, and a hella lot more neutral.

I'll admit, the Robin Hood image was more mainstream that perhaps they should be presented, but I think you're going to far.

Uh, that picture was there before, and whoever took that photo AGREED to have the photo placed in the Furry fandom article. If it's not flatterring, that's your own opinion. The reason the picture was chosen is because there needs to be at least some pictures showing fans of the furry fandom. (I suggest if you want to comment on how well the suits are designed, you might want to speak the person who wore it instead of complaining here) -- Grumpyhan 07:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image is still in the article; just pushed down. I think this is a fine compromise. -- Stiv 07:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason the fursuit image was re-added was because that picture is actually posted with the photographer's permission. I thought pictures of fans would certainly be appropriate, and these people are not doing anything crude or otherwise unflattering in the image--they're just posing in their costumes. What you linked to anyway was an anime "catgirl," which is arguably not really "furry" to begin with. If you can find an image of people engaging in furry fandom activities (public domain photography, please) that you feel is more flattering than the fursuit picture, by all means utilize it. I don't think any more images of anthropomorphic animals in media are necessary, though--copyrights on that kind of stuff are hazy and could easily be violations.

I changed the wording of the article because the existing wording showed a poor understanding of the English language and flowed extremely poorly. The article read very badly, with a large number of redundancies, and I fixed it. I tried to retain a neutral tone, but if you feel anything is phrased in a non-neutral way, please feel free to change it. -- Krishva 07:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Krishva, You've done a great job on the page, and should be commended. I'm sorry if I came across as rude. I certainly shouldn't have, and I owe you my apology. You did a very good job in merging the pages, and should be commended, not scorned.

I'll back down and consider this closed. Feel free to edit things back to how you feel makes more sense- The only part I really have any worry about is the discussion on Sex in the Furry community.. I think that putting the people who Do that before the discussion of Why it might be a bad thing makes the article seem more unfriendly.. But I also understand if it is more readable and makes more sense that way. Edit as you will.

I'm sorry for all the trouble between this page and the Furry page. While I Still disagree with merging them, I'm in the minority, and I know when I've lost. I'll see what the moderator says, and Maybe int he future create a Furry Art page, or something, and then we can talk about using Furry as a disambiguation page. Maybe that's a stupid idea. But I'm done for now, and I appreciate you putting up with me.

Wikipedia is a nice place, and I hope to avoid edit wars in the future.

68.163.234.98

I'm all for furry becoming a disambiguation page, once this article is large enough to be split, or even currently, if there can be a furry art page made up to wikipedia standards for new articles. I think I speak for everyone involved when I thank you for being reasonable, and I hope you contribute valuable information to this (and other) articles. -- Stiv 09:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know that picture is a cat girl, as opposed to a catgirl right? The difference is that that picture is an animé portrait of a girl with animal characteristics (not dissimilar to therianthropy), and that furry pictures are more ... well... furry! Jay Naylor's Better Days (webcomic) is a good example of furry artwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.249.111 (talk • contribs)

Whichever, it's not in the article. That discussion is almost a year old, and doesn't relate to the current version. Coyoty 02:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt that it was rather counterproductive to mention zoophilia and then immediately discount any connection—why mention something at all if the claim is that it's not related? I removed the mention in my most recent edit. Please let me know if anyone has a compelling argument for adding it back. -- Rikoshi 21:16, 13 Jun 2005 (PST)

It was meant to be informative re: the claim of zoophilia (i.e. furries have sex with animals) that is often spread around the internet. In order to discount the claim one has to state it first, so that's why it was in there. Not sure how removing that and the examples of specific things the media overexaggerates about furry fans makes the article more NPOV. You're going to have to explain this one to me. --Prangton 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, the zoophilia thing is a little hazy as far as being necessary, but it was there when I edited the section so I left it in. I have heard accusations before of furries being bestialists or zoophiles, so it may be notable to mention it if it can be implemented better in the section. As it stood, even with editing, it sounded too much like a footnote.

I do think that the examples of what the media has exaggerated in television references to furries are founded and worth mentioning. It's not POV to say that images of "furpiles" and conventions full of yiffing fursuiters on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation were exaggerations. --Krishva 03:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

To address Prangton's question of listing examples: in an article about comic book fans, it doesn't serve any interest to go out of the way to make a statement like, "A lot of humor pokes fun at the fact that lots of comic book fans enjoy looking at drawings of women with ridiculously large breasts." It's not an exact analogy, I admit, but I think it's sufficient to say that "The media has highlighted more exteme aspects of furry sexuality" without specifically drawing attention to practices that, by definition, are 'extreme' and not indicative of the whole. That is to say, I think it would be better to not mention something like 'fursuit sex' in the same breath as 'media,' because it implies some sort of relationship that, at least in an inherent sense, isn't there.

As for the zoophilia/bestiality note, I believe that I've come up with a better way to phrase the previous mention so that it sounds less like 'vehement denial.' Please feel free to check that and give suggestions. --Rikoshi 14:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The weirder stuff

Is there any way that some of the weirder sexual stuff (y'know, vore and macro and the like) that seems to show up in the furry fandom could be around, without violating PoV? Ditto "furry-bashing", the accusations that furries are self-righteous and take criticism badly, etc.

Because it would open up more interesting stuff about the supposed struggle that's going on, you know, the whole silent majority thing that some furries claim. More info about the Burned Furs, etc. I've been doing some reading on the internet, from within and without the fandom, and there is lots of stuff (can't vouch for PoV though) about Mark Merlino, how according to some the furry fandom is disproportionately homosexual or "jailhouse gay", etc.

It's the sort of stuff that's informative, but is really to the nth degree hard to have without adopting a point of view. --Edward Wakelin 18:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About the "history" stuff, I'm talking about the sort of stuff that shows up at places like CrushYiffDestroy (crushyiffdestroy.com/b2/index.php).

Is it just me, or is the way that stuff that happened around the time bulletin boards and mailing systems and the like were happening, late 80s early 90s, has become this highly ambiguous history, esp. when it comes to relatively minor stuff like furrydom, fascinating?

--Edward Wakelin 18:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kinda tough. Whenever someone mentions CYD it gets removed for a variety of reasons (mainly that it's spreading misinformation, but the oddest reaction I've seen so far has been that "it wasn't related to furry", which, um, really confused me.) CYD isn't really a trustworthy site, though, I wouldn't rely on it for accurate information further than I could throw it. What we shouldn't be doing for the furry fandom page is turning it into a long list of peoples' opinions. Hearsay doesn't really work in an encyclopedia.

What we need to do is move less in a point-counterpoint direction and talk about events and the people involved, without making value judgements on their actions. So rather than saying "some people think this" and "other people think this", we can say "the burned fur movement wanted to accomplish this (some quote from their manifesto)". --Prangton 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Damn, it must have messed up when I tried to post this:

The whole thing is that the "Oh it's only a few bad people who make porno or the really kinky porno or whatever" line a lot of furries recite is just not true. If it was, the Burned Furs wouldn't have failed.

On the other hand, I can understand the smut, I can't understand the ones who actually seem to believe they are animals, the way that new fetishes seem to naturally generate, or the way that furries seem to want to invent new kinds of animals, instead of going with what's already out there.

The astonishing self-righteousness is another thing. The "I have the free speech right to draw children's cartoon characters having sex with each other, but you don't have the right to criticise me, you hateful mundane" attitude is just hilarious. --Edward Wakelin 00:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of therianthropy or otherkin, not furry fans. And in those cases, live and let live. Also, there really aren't that many furry fans that pervert cartoon characters. I mean if they pervert anything, it's their own characters and inventions and such. Thinking furries are silly is fine as long as that doesn't factor into your edits. It's the same thing as glossing over the material and thinking furries are perfect, it risks becoming POV pretty quickly. We KNOW we can't paint all furries with the same brush. They're an interest group which encapsulates lots of personalities. Some are self-righteous, but lots more aren't. Feel free to edit the article, though, if you can keep this in mind. Be bold with your edits, as they say. --Prangton 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's probably one of those things were neutrality is nearly impossible. And I don't wanna have to write the bloody vore entry. --Edward Wakelin 02:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we just stuck to what furry fandom was actually about rather than tacking on a lot of irrelevant information. —Xydexx 29 June 2005 02:10 (UTC)

We should stick to what furry fandom IS actually about, not was. And as far as irrelevant information, well, who gets to decide what's relevant and what's irrelevant? Right now that's what's causing the NPOV issues. --Prangton 29 June 2005 05:52 (UTC)

To answer, "who gets to decide what's relevant and what's irrelevant?" Generally, whoever has the most power forces their opinions down everyone else's throat no matter if it's right. Usually it's admins (people don't work to get adminship out of the goodness of their heart). Other times it's a group of people that decided to gather around an article and force its edits a certain way (like many I see). Even with credible sources, those who control an article will just remove this source. Whenever you see someone cleaning up links saying there is too many, they are doing it precisely so they can put in POV edits that the article no longer has links to sources to prove them wrong. This furry fandom article ignores almost entirely every website about furries and gives a biased viewpoint. Then, even if someone posts a link that disproves information on a talk page, the hordes of accounts go around deleting the comments. SnowConeYellow 29 June 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Err.. I am an admin. I still think that Furry should be an article on its own. By your logic, that's all what is needed to make me the person who decides what will happen. I must have missed something when I became an admin, something like "now you get to decide everything".. damn. And for the external links removal, read (and understand) Wikipedia:External links. Linking every page that has something to do with furry should not be done, there are hundreds or even thousands of such pages. We should only like to pages about furry (or the furry fandom), and to a web directory containing links to many furry pages. Wikipedia itself is not a web directory. --Conti|✉ June 29, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

The not an external links collection line is used as an excuse to remove links that an article needs as its source proof. A person could use wikipedia is not paper to the wrong ends as well. Someone needs to find proof conclusive about NPOV disagreements in this article by getting links. It centers on two types (1) People that like movies like the lion king and by definition are a furry fan (2) People more obssessed with furry fandom: roleplaying, dressing in costumes, surgical modifications, furry cybersex, sexual attraction to furry art, drawing furry porn. I have seen nothing beyond the furry wikipedia articles that tries to claim the second type is either nonexistant or extremely rare. The select links in the article that show a softer side of furry fandom soon relink to the more bizzare, and the links keep getting more so from there. Hiding the obsessive furry fandom is spin, is inaccurate. SnowConeYellow 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)

The two 'types' you list there make it sound very black and white; the way you're wording yourself, it sounds like you're trying to say, "We acknowledge that folks are either casual fans who like animals, or hardcore kinky sex fetishists." There's a spectrum, here, and it's something that I agree should be acknowledged. However, I also don't think that the way the article is worded now comes across as saying that the sexual aspects of furry are "rare."

As for the links: the link lists in question weren't about backing up opinions; they were bookmark lists for lots of furry sits. This isn't Furry Web Portal; it's Wikipedia. Rikoshi 29 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)

The ideal thing would be that a general consensus would decide what's relevant and what's not. That's not easy to achieve with such a controversial topic of course. I don't really understand why we have to list fetishes that some furries have. The fetishes are not exclusively used by furries, only a minority of all furries have them, their number is not even bigger than the number of fetishists outside the fandom (and no, I don't have a source for that, that's just my personal observation) and we don't write on other topics that there are people who combine, let's say, Goth with BDSM. And while we're at it, why mention some weird fetishes, and not even the allegedly high number of gays in the fandom? That's a thing that is a bit more obvious, and there was for a while a large section in Furry that tried to explain this. It was removed for some reason. Adding this makes more sense to me, it doesn't feel like "look at the weird furries, they do this and this and this!". --Conti|✉ June 29, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Who decides what's relevant? Hopefully not folks who are intent in incorporating inaccurate information from CSI or Vanity Fair or what have you. I think most folks will agree misinformation doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Besides, the fetish information really isn't relevant. You could find a greater percentage of furry fans who live in New York state, or wear glasses, or have jobs in the tech industry, or are college students. That doesn't make that information relevant or mean it should be included either. As Conti mentions above, these fetishes are not held exclusively by furries nor do a significant percentage of fans have them.

This is an article about furry fandom. It should focus on what furry fandom is about. If you really want to delve into what fetishes people have (funny animal fans or otherwise), then there is no reason why you can't do so on the appropriate page rather than here. (i.e., folks who have fetishes for funny animals would be toonophilia.) Hope this clears up any NPOV concerns. —Xydexx 1 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The list isn't intended to apply those fetishes to all furry fans, and I really don't see how it could, considering the context it's written in. --Prangton 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

A google image search with safesearch off for "yiff" reveals thousands of yiff pornographic drawings. [1]. I want to hear arguments from both sides over the relevance of this piece of information. WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay 2 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

It's covered: "there is a sizeable amount of adult furry material". Yes? --82.33.49.12

What about then just the link [2] as proof of it? WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay 3 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

No. --Conti|✉ July 3, 2005 12:34 (UTC)

The fetish stuff was in the "Sex and the Furry Fandom" section, I can't imagine any more appropriate a place to put it. I don't see why it keeps getting removed, considering the fact that it's accurate and makes perfect sense in the context, and also makes no claim to foist those kinks on all furry fans. So I'm just confused. As well, I don't think toonophilia properly encompases the entire "furry fetish" thing, seeing as it only applies to cartoon characters. Maybe it might help settle arguments if we made, oh I dunno, a furry fetish page. I can hear the NO NO NOs already, but there are easily enough idiosyncracies there to give the page lots of content. If there was a better title for it, we could merge toonophilia into that as well (seeing as that page has very little content). --Prangton 3 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

I question the use of 'toonophilia' in the current context, as well; I rarely see or hear the term used at all, and when I do, it's not used in the sense implied in the article text.

Perhaps a furry fetish page is in order. It DOES exist, after all, and it wouldn't carry the same implications that sticking a detailed sex section in the 'fandom' entry might. -- Rikoshi 5 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

For making a furry fetish page... There is already a fur fetishism page, but it's about wearing fur coats and such (not even dressing in a cat costume)--that confused me at first. Then there's a yiff page and to my understanding yiff = furry sex (someone please clarify this as I've heard debate in whether it is or isn't). I personally think the fetish over furry drawings is akin to fetish of alien women, like from sci fi. Or well actually in the case of furry, it's typically men. It's also related to demon and fantasy art porn (like a drawing of a demon), but a mere cartoon porn drawing of a regular person differs from furry porn. Furry porn fits strange creature porn. But for tentacle rape, that seems too far removed from furry porn. I think this all gets removed because people are scared to discuss pornography. DyslexicEditor 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Yiff is a really bad article. It should be on Wikictionary, not Wikipedia. Yiff does mean furry sex, but I haven't heard the term used, other than as a joke, for ages and ages. Maybe I just don't hang around the right people. Or rather, "yiff" does seem to be used by certain types of furries, but not others. What the ratio is, I have no idea.

Regardless, I'm not sure where to draw the line here, on whether it's distinct enough to warrant its own article or whether it should become a part of a "strange creature porn" article if ever it sees the light. But I'm leaning toward the former, because furry fetishims has its idiosyncrasies, such as fursuit sex, vorephilia, specific types of body inflation fetishes, and the fetishism of animals' sexual organs on human bodies (I don't think that has a name) which separates it from, say, a fetish for alien women. Just to name a few. --Prangton 6 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I guess I didn't explain clearly enough, so I'll try again: You could say furry fans drive Honda Civics (except for the ones who don't) and that would be an accurate statement. But so what? How is it relevant? What does it have to do with furry fandom?

It's not a question of accuracy so much as relevance. I know furry fans who are also into geocaching or exploring abandoned buildings, but while "furry fans like geocaching and exploring abandoned buildings" would be an accurate statement, it's not really relevant to furry fandom. Just because a furry fan likes geocaching doesn't mean geocaching has anything to do with furry fandom. Just because a furry fan likes exploring abandoned buildings does not mean exploring abandoned buildings has anything to do with furry fandom. And just because a furry fan has a fetish doesn't mean that fetish has anything to do with furry fandom. Get it?

I could see justification for including this if it were unique to furry fandom, but it isn't. Personally, I heard about a lot of these fetishes years before I was even aware of furry fandom. Really, the closest thing to a "furry" fetish is toonophilia. (Although while I've commonly seen the term used for folks who find funny animals attractive, it apparently isn't limited to furry fans.) I don't know what the technical term for costume sex is, but that's not something practiced exclusively by furry fans either.

And besides, an article for sexual fetishism already exists. There is no reason for a seperate section on furry fetishes as, again, these fetishes are not held exclusively by furry fans. People who aren't in furry fandom have fetishes, too. Considering we don't have seperate sections for the geocaching and urban exploration folks' fetishes, so why are you trying to single out furry fans for special treatment?

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if folks keep trying to include the weirder stuff simply because they saw the more sensationalist media attention furry fandom has gotten in the past and just don't know any better. Here's my obligatory reminder that misinformation shouldn't get repeated and this article should focus on what furry fandom is actually about, instead of what a TV producer who needed to overexaggerate and twist the facts to get high ratings on sweeps week decided to portray it as. —Xydexx 6 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Jeez, Xydexx, we heard you the first time. We've moved beyond that. We're talking about moving this stuff off the furry fandom page and giving it a page of its own. That way it can be distinct from the furry fandom stuff. Honestly, actually read what we're talking about before you repeat the same spiel you've been delivering over and over again, it's really getting me frustrated, and it becomes less and less relevant to the conversation every time I see it.

Also, to answer your question, I haven't seen that much urban exploration porn, despite being into urban exploration myself for a while and I've seen a lot of the sites. Furry porn on the other hand... It's a subculture that's very open about its sexuality and I think that needs to be reflected in the article in some way or another. It's even more openly sexual than Trekkies, and perhaps even moreso than anime fans (though they're neck and neck pretty much). Also I think the sexual stuff does need to be mentioned in the furry fandom article just because it's such a big deal to those who are in it, yourself being no exception, evidently. Furry fans tend to be rather sexually mobilized and have lots of opinions on pornography and sexual fetishism. It's not a negative thing and I think it needs to be addressed. In fact, if you consider yourself an expert on it maybe you could address the issue in the furry fandom page.

This is getting more than a bit ridiculous, I don't really want to discuss this anymore; I don't know how much convincing you still need but it's getting really aggravating. But seriously, furry fetish page. There's such a thing, and since it's widespread, especially on the internet, it should have its own page. --Prangton 7 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

I guess you just don't understand furry fandom very well. At least we can agree there are better things we could be doing with our time. -:) Seriously, though, you yourself admit there's no reason for a seperate page for mentioning fetishes urban explorers have. You haven't really given a good reason why you want to single out funny animal fans for special treatment. We should focus on what furry fandom is about, and as others have noted we don't need a seperate page for so-called "furry" fetishes because they aren't exclusive to furry fans and these topics are already covered under sexual fetishism. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about the sexual habits of funny animal fans, as the only thing even remotely related would be toonophilia and an article already exists for that if you really feel it needs to be expanded.

Or if it'll make you feel better, we can also add seperate pages about what kind of cars furry fans drive, what sort of food they like to eat, what kind of jobs they have, and what their favorite types of music are, as it will be of equal relevance. But I trust you get the point and hopefully we won't have to waste any more of our time on this. —Xydexx 01:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Not the sexual habits, the openness with sexual material. That's something I think deserves a mention, at the very least. --Prangton 03:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confusing openness with availability. Most furry conventions (at least the ones I attend) have very specific rules regarding the display of sexual material, and people have been banned from conventions for violating them. The material is available for folks who want it; those who don't want it usually don't go looking for it. —Xydexx 01:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Trekkies are not sexually open at all. They are sexually repressed. DyslexicEditor 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

For at least ten years there's been a yiffnet on IRC. I don't know if it's still around. I've last been there in 2000 or so. I went there before I knew what furries or otherkin were--but I did meet them--I was just looking for psychics and that's where many were. (I know I'm going to get laughed at for this but it's a true story) As for furry fetishes, we should compare them with literary genres--where sometimes a novel mixes, merges, and blurs the lines between genres. Furry porn may be like toonphilia, it may be like demon-art-porn in another, and it may be like alien art in another. There's this dress in furry character costume sex thing, which is a different fetish as well. Also, what about hentai? There's something comparable. But is hentai-fetish the same thing as toonphilia? Of course if a furry only did the costume-erotic practice and not the art-porn fetish, then it would be different than toonphilia. Then there's articles already related like vore, and many others furry fetishes I've forgotten (partly because they aren't linked anywhere) that aren't just toonphilia. DyslexicEditor 6 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

They aren't "furry" fetishes since they aren't exclusively limited to furries. In a nutshell: Wow, some furries have fetishes... just like non-furries do. So what? —Xydexx 01:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to poke my nose into this again, but I think the relevance of fetishes to furry fandom is not so much that furries have them--a lot of other people have them, after all. It is more that furry fetishists combine the "furry" aspect with their other fetishes, essentially creating a new, unique fetish. Furry vore, inflation, costume, and other fetishes seem to be a bit different from their non-furry counterparts, in that they all involve anthropomorphic animals instead of human beings, humanlike aliens, inanimate objects, and other things that are not "furries." --Krishva 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't really a difference. If a group of furry fans go geocaching, that doesn't make what they're doing a "new" sport. It's still geocaching. As we're writing what furry fandom is about, there really isn't any good reason for you to single furry fans out for special treatment by inventing new fetishes to attribute to them. —Xydexx 01:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference I am discussing is that furries who have fetishes frequently tend to combine their fetishes with their furry fandom, while they do not combine furriness with geocaching, driving Honda Civics, or any other activity you've brought up that some furries do. I am not proposing an addition to this article detailing fetishes, but those fetishes strongly related to furry fandom could be added to a furry fetish article (which really ought to exist anyway, seeing as there is a unique fetish for furry characters outside of general cartoon fetish). It's a really curious phenomenon. --Krishva 07:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong there too. Furries combine non-fetish interests with furry fandom as well, as the existance of Rainbow Ark (Furry Christians) and MilFurs (Furries in the Military) will easily attest. Mine Fire Fur Meet, held at the smoking ruins of the former borough of Centralia, PA, combined furries and geocaching and urban exploration. There are a countless number of other non-fetish examples I could point out. There's nothing curious about it at all.

You also incorrectly assume these fetishes are related to furry fandom, when they have are about as related to it as they are related to geocaching or urban exploration. I don't quite understand your obsession with the sexual habits of folks who like funny animals, but hey, to each his own.

The point remains, there is no need for you to single out furries for special treatment just because they have interests other than furry fandom, because categories already exist for those topics. —Xydexx 00:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just that there are fetishes that exist in furry porn that really don't seem to be elsewhere. There's a lot of weird stuff on the internet, but I have yet to see, say, vore outside of Japanese non-furry cartoons. And the furry Christians are a bit odd, given that if one goes by scripture humans are closer to God than animals. The reason that furries have a reputation for weird sexual stuff is probably this: With cartoons, you can do things that would be lethal if you were actually drawing humans doing this, and other stuff that's impossible. This is why hentai has a well-deserved reputation for being damn bizarre. Another reason is that, for better or for worse, the furry fandom can be very accepting. As in "no, there's nothing wrong with hermaphrodite weasels in diapers eating each other". Thus, support is found.

I'm not making any generalisations, because I know that not every furry is out there drawing porno. But really, it's hardly as though the fandom as a whole is a lily-pure, completely innocent and naive thing, and anybody who's a weirdo would be just as weird if they weren't a furry. It's because fetishes can be fit into the larger subculture of furries, and can thus be felt to be validated, that they can grow. Don't underestimate the power of support or percieved support. And furries would probably be considered not half as odd if it wasn't for the huge amounts of righteous defensiveness that exists: The guys out there who spend their time prodding furries with sticks think it's a million times funnier when there's a reaction involving claims of persecution, and they think it's pure comedy gold when some oddball comment like "I AM A DRAGON AND I WILL EAT YOU" is made.

Of course furries are going to be defined by the weirdoes and the extremists: All groups are. It's not because the world hates furries, it's because in general the people buying papers and watching TV and surfing the net would rather look at the strange than the mundane. This extends to every group: RPGers: The nuttiest LARPers get the attention, and the kid who killed himself who played D&D (and was also into drugs and was unsure about his sexuality) is played up as some sort of victim of Satanism. Computer gamers: The guy who played Evercrack for 60 hours before dying of a heart attack at 400 pounds gets the attention. Religious types: The attention is given to the Westboro Baptist Church, or Islamist terrorists, or whatever. It's not because there's a campaign to make furries look bad, it's because it's far more interesting to see the crazy guy dressed as a lemur, than the ordinary guy who's just got a slightly new hobby. The sooner everybody realises this, the better. --Edward Wakelin 21:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"claims of persecution" -- actually this is called fursecution. I see the word "persecution" come up 4 times in this talk page. I think I'll correct it here and hope the other threads notice. DyslexicEditor 11:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be talking about fursecution. It is a silly word. :-) GreenReaper 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: PBF image

Originally posted by the anonymous user: It's just pure furry yiff! http://img228.echo.cx/img228/466/pbf003bcbunnypit2ik.jpg Look at the middle one. The top rabbit looks so seductively lovingly on the bottom one. The bottom one looks shocked.

The image in question http://img228.echo.cx/img228/466/pbf003bcbunnypit2ik.jpg is copyright protected. Though Perry Bible Fellowship is a pretty funny comic, um, whoever the anonymous person who keeps posting this to the talk page is, I don't really care what you get off on, but I'm afraid we can't use that image on wikipedia. If you're really interested in putting it somewhere, by all means, put it in the PBF article. --Prangton 01:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you could have mentioned this. But then nope you also have to delete every single post I make. My comment is simply, does this comment not relate to furry an yiff? 219.241.129.212 01:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do, man? :) --Prangton 01:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furry and Manga

Is there any connection between furry and manga? The drawing style seems very much alike. Also, they both have a large crowd of fans, and focus a lot on adult subjects.

--Kasper Hviid 10:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mixing furry with manga is actually a (sub)genre itself, called Kemono. And no, I can't tell you why furry is at Furry fandom, while kemono is not at "Kemono fandom".. --Conti|✉ 13:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I believe kemono is a uniquely Japanese genre. Drawing furry art in an anime or manga style is just drawing furry art in an anime or manga style. There does seem to be a fair amount of overlap between manga and furry fandoms, at least in the USA, but I'm not sure it's really worth noting.

On "kemono fandom": I can't read Japanese so I don't know about this, but the impression I have gotten is that kemono is a professional thing (like funny animal). If it isn't, then perhaps the kemono article should be overhauled to make that clearer and remove references to professional works that do not call themselves "kemono." (Someone who knows more about this than I do, preferably someone from Japan who understands the full cultural implications of this genre, should do this.) --Krishva 22:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like clarification of your contradictory (and admittedly strange) reasoning here. You say there's a fair amount of overlap between manga and furry and it's not worth noting, however you think fetish interests which are totally unrelated to furry fandom deserve a whole new category to link them together. —Xydexx 01:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the overlap between furry and manga isn't really interesting, since it doesn't extend beyond using a manga-inspired style to draw furry characters. It's one sentence--not even worth a paragraph of discussion. However, the overlap between fetish interests and furry is interesting, it's something about furry fandom that people have indeed taken notice of in large quantities, and it's something that could really be further discussed for interested parties. It is not a "whole new category" I am going for, either--just an article about general furry fetish and the fact that furries who have fetishes tend to incorporate furry fetish into their other fetishes. Maybe the Furvert article would be a good place for this discussion? --Krishva 21:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The connection between furry and manga is Osamu Tezuka. Many older furries credit Kimba as a major inspiration. Kemono is also inspired by Tezuka characters. The later connection can be found in "Ninja High School" and "Gold Digger." At that point in the early to mid 90's, furry and manga were two interchangeable aspects of the same comics movement, sharing the same artists and space in the same titles.

As for discussing fetishes, this is not the place for that. This is a page about the fandom for the furry arts. If you want to talk about fetishes related to cartoons, you need a toon smut or toonophilia page.

What is Furshampoo??????

I saw this Furshampoo, then this Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Furshampoo. But then I found it on the other wiki and it's http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furshampoo pretty bad there. I'm interested if someone knows if it is real or not since I may change my vote after I have more information. SnowConeYellow 14:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. See Encyclopædia Dramatica, it is a "fun" encyclopedia, so everyone can write everything as long as it is funny (and derogative, it seems). So that makes furshampoo an obvious hoax (and everyone who is involved in the fandom knew that anyways). Thank you. --Conti|✉ 16:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

But http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furry page is more accurate than this one. (People are always trying to hide the sexual on wikipedia) SnowConeYellow 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no comment. YHBT or something. --Zetawoof 17:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's the question if he has been trolled or if he is just another troll.. --Conti|✉ 18:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I once had a black ballcap and I put it in the washing machine. When I took it out, it was mangled and ruined. Someone suggested the thing to do is to use a dishwasher. Thodin 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What? --Zetawoof 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Furry lifestyler

User:Sj has added a merge proposal notice to furry lifestyler, suggesting its content be merged with this article. It's very noticeable that at the moment the furry fandom article doesn't even mention the term "furry lifestyle(r)", nor link to it, let alone attempt to explain its meaning, which is fine if this article is deliberately meant to focus only on the fannish aspects of furry, but a major omission if it's supposed to represent furry as a whole. So... what do others think: is a merge a good idea or not? Loganberry (Talk) 22:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

They appear to be different phenomenons, so separate articles would be called for. I notice a tendency to remove information and merge articles related to this topic. Is there a reason? -Willmcw 22:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm inclined to oppose a merge, as I said at Talk:Furry lifestyler, for much the reasons you give - though I do think a reference to that page from here at furry fandom (maybe in the "See Also" section) would be a good idea. As for your question, I don't know for certain; as far as I'm aware no-one has put up this particular merge proposal before now. What I personally would like to see would be an article simply entitled Furry giving an overview, with furry fandom and furry lifestyler (and so on) as separate articles referenced therefrom - Furry is currently a disambig page, but two of the three meanings would come under any proposed umbrella article, and the gay slang meaning could be put at Furry (gay slang) if there's enough material for a full article and merged into Bear community otherwise. However, I suspect that this idea would not gain consensus on the grounds that a furry fandom article would be seen as duplicating much of the same ground as furry itself. Loganberry (Talk) 23:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Furry lifestyler should not be merged here, for the reasons given. For the Furry article being more than a disambiguation page.. actually it was once, see the original Furry article. I'd also like to have a full article there (or rather a short introductory one), but consensus was against me. See Talk:Furry and its archive for quite a long discussion about this. I noted numerous people wondering why Furry is just a disambiguation page since then though, so maybe the consensus wasn't as clear as I thought. --Conti|✉ 09:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Merging is not a good idea in my opinion - however it would make sence to link to Furry lifestyler from Furry fandom since the lifestylers are a valid subset of the fandom (allthought it's important to note that not all furries are lifestylers, even if all lifestylers per definison are furries). Or they could be linked from Furry I guess. Actually, I think I'll be bold and do just that ;)

WegianWarrior 10:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with merging--furry lifestyler is a subset of furry fandom, so shouldn't it be a subset of the furry fandom article? Right now the lifestyler article is an overly verbose mess, but it could be easily condensed and placed in furry fandom with an explanation that not all furries fit within that group.

A lot of merging and editing has been happening with furry-related articles because frankly a lot of the material was (and still is) repetetive, excessively long, poorly written, and poorly organized. Why not merge and edit to produce concise, useful articles that clearly and neutrally explain the material? Furry fandom should be essentially the comprehensive article about furry fans and their related activities/sub-groups. --Krishva 07:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to the merge simply due to the fact that alt.lifestyle.furry was created for discussing things that weren't related to furry fandom. Merging would only make the article on furry fandom more confusing and incorporate a lot of unrelated material into it. —Xydexx 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there a heck of an argument on the now-disambig-Furry-page? I reckon we should just leave the pages as they currently stand. MrD 05:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, merging these articles would be a bad idea - they're about distinct topics and there's plenty to be said about each. The elimination of the furry page was already bad enough, forcing stuff to be mixed together in this article that IMO doesn't entirely belong here. Bryan 06:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as I've mentioned, I think furry would be by far the best place to put a general article, since I think that (as a noun) this is easily the most popular meaning of the word, and so a disambig page is rather silly - but sadly there isn't enough of a consensus to do that, at least not without some major arguments. Hey ho. Loganberry (Talk) 22:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, do you know what? I am tired of everyone's whining about the furry article being a disambig page. I really don't want to have to care anymore. If you want to put content on the furry page, you can. I don't know why it's so important for both articles to exist but seriously feel free to bring back the furry page. I am personally withdrawing from this argument because it's stupid and stressing me out and I'm tried of people being all passive-agressive about editing choices I feel 100% sure about. --Prangton 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that I have Never heard anyone use the word's "funny animal" or "talking animal" in a conversation to refer to anthropomorphic characters. I have however heard the word's "cartoon animal" and "furry" or "anthro" which is why I started looking up the "furry" word. I don't know why "funny animal" or "talking animal" are used as slang for anthropomorphics on Wikipedia when if you Google those words you get something completely different than Wikipedia's entries on them. But if you Google "cartoon animal" you get exactly what you are looking for. What is Wikipedia's reasoning for this obvious inaccuracy? 68.199.46.6 19:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some Purposeful blurring of definitions going on here. Like Prangton defining "Furry" as "Material made by the Furry Fandom", in the Funny Animal talk page. I've read that there has been much conflict over this issue. But looking over the archives a lot of it seems to hinge on Furry being defined as "material made by the Furry Fandom", which is oxymoronic and not a valid definition. Would it be possible to set up some kind of vote to see if a Furry page should be reposted? 68.199.46.6 19:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It may be moronic, but it's pretty accurate. ;-)

Actually, it's the best way of coping with a bad situation. People do not agree on specific things, but they do agree that it's generally covered by "output of the furry fandom" (material or otherwise). The issue is not that the definition is incorrect, it's that everyone has their own idea of what the furry fandom is. Thus you get disagreement about exactly what material, philosophies, fetishes and other parts of culture are covered by the term "furry". GreenReaper 02:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not moronic, Oxymoronic. The defintion of Furry being "material made by the furry fandom" is a self-contradiction and thus not a valid definition. You can't alternately call "Furry Fandom", the "Material made by the Furry Fandom, Fandom" can you? Of course not, and that's why it is a contradiction in terms and not a valid definition Regardless of what your idea of "furry" is. 68.199.46.6 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure we can. Furry stuff is material made by the furry fandom. The furry fandom consists of people who make stuff that is furry. It's self-referential, but not oxymoronic. And the moronic bit was a joke, hence the winky: ;-)

Words cannot always be transcluded - sometimes, if you try, it just makes a mess - but I think the meaning above is pretty obvious. :-) GreenReaper 05:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No dictionary will ever contradict itself in defining a word by using the same word. No definition can be "self-referential". If it does, it doesn't define anything, as the whole reason to look up a word is to explain it without using the word. Didn't they teach you in grade school to test a word's definition by using it in a sentence? "Material made by the furry fandom, fandom" - simply doesn't work. 68.199.46.6 05:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you whining about? Your wonderful detractors gave up on the furry/furry fandom articles ages ago. We got sick of the drama. I've already said this. So either grow up, get a grip, and be bold with your edits like you're supposed to, or continue to whine and wallow in your persecution. I really don't have the patience to deal with this. --Prangton 07:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would can the personal attacks. As they are not allowed under Wikipedia policy. But I take it then that there are no longer any objections to reposting the Furry page? Specifically I'd like to see some disambiguation at the top followed by an explanation of this slang word, its origins, its uses, its myriad of possible definitions, its possible positive or negative connotations etc. 68.199.46.6 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like that, and I've seen quite some voices by now wondering why this became a disambiguation page in the first place. --Conti|✉ 00:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur - a home for the furry community

I would like to make a proposal. But first, I would like to tell you a story. Bear with me! :-)

--GreenReaper 05:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is not perfect for us

One day, not so long ago, I was writing a page about the Blind Pig. It's a fun series of stories about a future where anthropomorphic mutations are common. There have been quite a few stories in the series; some of you may even be familiar with it. That's the trouble, though — some of you probably do know about it, but the vast majority of people don't. Moreover, it is hard to say whether they would ever want to.

I was worrying, even as I wrote it, "will this really be deemed encyclopedia material?", as in my heart I knew that it was on the borderline. There are many things that I have never written about on Wikipedia, as they go far beyond that border. But I couldn't get rid of the thought they deserve writing about somewhere.

So I decided to make that somewhere. Here it is. It's not much, now — although I have spent some time writing some pages — but I believe it can grow. Why? Because I've seen it happen.

It worked last time!

Consider the Creatures Wiki. Founded at the start of this year, it started small, but has since grown to over 2000 pages, and over 230,000 words - enough to fill three good-sized novels. It turned out that there was a lot to be said about a game series which had maybe five pages and a few stubs on Wikipedia, made by a company that went bust two years ago.

More importantly, it was a lot more than could ever have been said on Wikipedia. Take, for example, the infamous Tortured Norns, the cheese page, or perhaps the Creatures 2 genome, a topic of great importance to the Creatures community, but with virtually zero relevance to anyone else. It would have been argued over, and eventually deleted, or relegated to a small section in the main Creatures 2 article. Not one-tenth of the pages linked to from the Creatures history page would be deemed worthy of a page on Wikipedia, for all that they are of interest to the Creatures community.

The proposal

I therefore propose that, since the furry pages here are never likely to reach their true potential, and since there is obviously a wish to expand them, that they be copied or recreated on WikiFur, and expanded to other topics from there. I think that the existing articles on Wikipedia are useful, and relevant (the fact that they have survived until now is sufficient proof of that) but I also think that a wikicity is a better place for in-depth development of furry topics than here. Then, once there is an active body of good pages about the community there, it will be acceptable to put links to them in the appropriate pages here, so people can go to WikiFur for more information.

About Wikicities

Some explanation is probably required: Wikicities is a collection of MediaWikis like Wikipedia, only intended for community works that don't fit best on Wikipedia, but which are crying out for the wiki concept. The sites are licensed under the GFDL (so can use Wikipedia content, and vice versa) and are run and hosted by the same people who do Wikipedia, although they wear different hats, working for Wikia rather than the WikiMedia Foundation. Angela Beesley, recently re-elected as a WikiMedia Trustee by a landslide, is the main coordinator. See this article in the Wall Street Journal.

The best Wikicities so far — Creatures, Star Wars, Doom and the like — have all had established communities who were just waiting for a place to express themselves in the wiki way. I think WikiFur can be that place for the furry community.

Call to action

Now we come to the bit where I ask you to help out. I know I can't do what I did for the Creatures Wiki again. The furry community is too big, and I am now too busy to spend many hours each day researching and writing pages. But I'm pretty sure there are those of you who have the knowledge and could devote the effort to helping make the best, freely-editable furry resource on the web.

As they say, it requires only the will to do so . . . so won't you come along for the ride? I'm sure it'll be a blast. :-)

Discussion

Amazingly enough, WikiFur has managed to gain 750 article pages in its first month without a single line of discussion here. I though I should note this in passing, in case people thought it was an idea that went nowhere. If you're just reading this now, come join us! GreenReaper 05:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, things didn't stop there. We just passed 2500 articles by the start of 2006. Still plenty more to write, though. :-) GreenReaper 10:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Example of Furry Artwork

Is it possible to make the "example of furry artwork" an animated gif showing a variety of examples, to avoid it being changed by everyone who has their own idea of what it should be? If someone wants a picture to be shown, it could be added to the gif by request. Gentaur 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an animated GIF is a bad idea. It would distract away from the article, which is not about furry art, but the furry fandom (which includes art as an aspect of it). Regardless, it might (possibly) be a good idea to change the picture in question [3] to something less overtly sexualized. Furry art with a sexual theme is better suited for the yiff article. --kotra 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be an animated gif of one of the sex scenes during MTV's Sex2K documentary on furries. I mean this seriously. I REALLY would like to see that here. Chunitaku 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think these say it all:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom/msg/71451bc349595e2?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&rnum=1

http://www.furry-furry.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=2272&start=0

http://www.livejournal.com/community/fursecution/

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:1135197598215.jpg

(though the last needs "Jailhouse Gay" across it in big letters) Bluntly, furries HAVE earned a rather unsavory reputation online. It's not their sexuality per se, but, rather, the persecution complex they demonstrate. They can't take a joke, they're hypersensitive to any criticism (if you doubt this, just scroll up and see for yourself, on this very page), even if it only exists in their heads, they're so easily provoked that we wonder about their sanity, and once they decide to take offense, you're likely to see them go foaming-at-the-mouth nuts (defamatory statement removed) Should the article about Internet cranks mention furry fandom specifically as a topic that draws disproportionate numbers of cranks, along with UFOs and conspiracy theories?

Science fiction fandom takes a dim view of furries too. Ask anyone who's ever worked as con staff about skunkf*ckers.

Once again, it's not about sexuality qua sexuality. It's the behavior. As HellPope Huey once noted, "I like Star Trek as much as the next guy, but I never felt called upon to dress up like a Klingon." I, personally, have some weird interests of my own. Some of them are very weird indeed. I have occasionally been told this by others. My reaction is to nod in agreement, not to start screaming and comparing people to Hitler.

It may be that there is, somewhere, a silent majority of furries who aren't shrill obnoxious drama queens of dubious sanity who molest their dogs and wank to tranny catgirl porn. I wish they'd speak up. Otherwise, we would do well to remember that a stereotype is the aggregate of many observations over time. If even Trekkies cringe when you mention furries, there just might be a reason for it.

For that matter, are furries significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article of their very own, one which will guarantee unending furrydrama(tm), in which an unending army of fat pimply borderline-autistic skunkf*ckers discovering this page while surfing the Web in search of unicorn dickgirl porn, will then whine unceasingly that they're misunderstood and they don't really wank to unicorn dickgirl porn? A vote for deletion is in order, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.26.104 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"It may be that there is, somewhere, a silent majority of furries who aren't shrill obnoxious drama queens of dubious sanity who molest their dogs and wank to tranny catgirl porn. I wish they'd speak up."

Well, 68.41.26.104 (if that is your real name), since you asked, I'm speaking up. But the problem is, once I speak up, I automatically become "hypersensitive to criticism", don't I? Oh well. To explain the furry fandom accurately is difficult at best, because it has evolved into a subculture, and like any subculture, it has great diversity. Every furry has a different concept of what furry is. There are some who consider themselves furries because they are interested by art and stories depicting strange mythical creatures partway between human and animal, and there are some who specifically like erotic art and stories, whether or not they are about anthropomorphic animals. There are some who feel they have a totemistic connection to an animal or animals. There are some who like dressing up in rather silly animal costumes (fursuits), and there are even a subset of this group who have sex in the fursuits.

Now, if you were a TV show or a blogger and were running low on fresh material, what aspect of the furry fandom would you choose to focus on? Of course, you would go for the most shocking and/or strange aspects, which in this case is the sexual side. A similar example that you mentioned is the Star Trek convention scenario. Hardly any Star Trek fans dressed up like Klingons and shouted GAGH KAPLAH!!!, but of course that's who the camera was going to focus on.

I think that the reason some furries get so worked up about the persecution complex is because the media and much of society has focused on sex exclusively. Hardly anyone likes to be labeled a pervert, especially those who have no interest in the sexual side of the fandom in the first place. But are some of these furries overreacting? Probably. Personally I don't care really. If society wants to label furry as a sexual fetish and nothing else, that's a bit annoying, but I don't care much what they think anyways.

And yes. You will find a few furries that talk about how furry is just a sexual thing and it's all about yiff blah blah blah. You will also find that these furries are usually newbies to the fandom who have been attracted to it by the sexuality-themed coverage in the media. There is a "silent majority" (or at least a "silent plurality", I don't know because they're silent) that doesn't want to label themselves to the world as furries because of the idiocy these other furries (call them furverts if you like) are spouting to the world.

My point is... please explore something fully before you make judgements about it. There are lots of people like me who would never wear a fursuit or fuck an animal or a stuffed toy or what have you. But I would still consider myself a furry regardless. (might this entire conversation have been avoided if you had read the other (lengthy) conversation above?) --kotra 09:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

68.41.26.104, I think your reasoning is flawed, your point consists purely in personal attacks, and you just joined the wrong thread. However, it's a free country, it's a free encyclopedia, and if you think this article has no place in it, go ahead and nominate it for deletion instead of trying to proof your ideas with off-topics. Thank you. - Ekevu (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was a slideshow of different pictures, not one picture that moves. Alternatively, can a different picture be shown each time the page is viewed? Gentaur 09:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. It would still be distracting if it was a slideshow. It would make it seem like a major focus of the article is furry art, which is not the case. (besides, GIFs are terrible for most images, unless they're designed to be rendered in a flat-color (or cel shading style), 256-color palette.

Javascript (in combination with cookies) could show a different image for each page view, but I'm not sure if it's possible to embed Javascript in a Wikipedia article. Regardless, even if it was possible, it would be unnecessary and maybe even confusing to viewers to see a different image each time they went to the page. I think we should keep it simple. Three or four images total is enough for an article. After all, it's not a gallery. If you think there needs to be a place to show different styles of furry art, consider starting a Furry Art article. --kotra 12:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kotra. We can't represent "all" instances of furry art genres, and it's pointless to try to do so here. Perhaps we could try having a small non-{{copyvio}} gallery in Wikimedia Commons and link to there, either from here or from a (potentially) good furry art (currently a redirect) article. But first, we need one better image. - Ekevu (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

All other issues aside, I think an animated gif would be a bad idea because you can't print an animation. Wikipedia's content isn't solely intended to be displayed here on a website, hopefully one day you'll be able to buy a nice bound set (only 229 volumes in the abridged version :) for your shelves. Or, in the more near term, people might print out this particular article for whatever reason. A gallery on Commons would be nice, I'm sure there are enough furry artists out there willing to put a sample image or two under a free licence to get a a good cross-section. Bryan 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some work by Dark Natasha? She is fairly free with her (high-quality) work, as long as the copyright notice is preserved. Obviously, you should ask first, but I do think she would say yes. GreenReaper 10:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon your recommendation, I emailed her a couple weeks ago, but no response yet. Are there any other artists you might recommend? (especially of more realistic styles like Dark Natasha's, since that style of furry art isn't represented here) Thanks! -kotra 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a little odd. I emailed her about a copyright issue once and she replied very quickly. Perhaps try from another email? As for realistic artists, I never can remember names, umm . . . how about Goldenwolf? GreenReaper 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll try again from another email.

I saw Goldenwolf at Further Confusion a month ago and very nervously talked about Wikipedia and noted that her art was on the anthropomorphism article. I think she was surprised but ok with it. Perhaps we could use that picture, as it's already here on Wikipedia? -kotra 05:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just looked at Image:Vantage Point.jpg and it appears to be mistagged; the "Not to be printed or otherwise sold in any way" condition makes this image unusable by Wikipedia. Unless she explicitly frees it up more than this it'll probably have to be deleted. Bryan 06:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I was able to contact Dark Natasha and she graciously gave permission. I've replaced the image with one of hers that I think is a good improvement. -kotra 09:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)