Talk:Furry fandom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Furry fandom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Furry fandom. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Furry fandom at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Furry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 3, 2016	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Furry Top‑importance

	Furry fandom is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.FurryWikipedia:WikiProject FurryTemplate:WikiProject Furryfurry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Add to further reading: Strike, Joe. "Furry Planet: A World Gone Wild: Includes History, Costumes, and Conventions." ISBN 978-1-954641-10-5 Apollo Publishers, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYFly (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

need improvement

paragraph 65 should have a link to the survey and/or be updated with a more recent survey to increase credibility. MCFY83 (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cite is to the research paper which conducted the survey. We don't need to show the original data here. And if you can find a newer survey that fits WP:RS, please feel free to point us in that direction. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea where the site is help MCFY83 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ID of the "pair of cartoonists" who created Vootie

Reed Waller and Ken Fletcher were the pair of cartoonists, who started it up in Minneapolis. A scan of a flyer they made to discuss it can be found here (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/19451045/), but a Google search of their names might be able to provide a better source to to reference. There's loads of pages though, so it would be great if someone who's allowed to edit this can find a more appropriate one. 2603:7080:9D40:66C1:845B:1DB7:474A:446 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late where I am but it's a start to have the artists named; I added the link to the page as a primary source to confirm it. Any input by other editors is appreciated here! Recon rabbit 03:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add an article detailing the anthropomorphic research project(Furscience)

I would like to suggest adding a page about the anthropomorphic research project, known as furscience to the majority. It should include:

Origins of the project + History
Types of data, maybe examples
Effect it has had on the furry fandom as a whole
How they collect their data
Known members

86.22.133.69 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable, independent sources demonstrating this project is notable? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Waka Waka

I reverted some of the latest edits because they simply aren't supported by the source. The source does not talk about the fandom having "generally been received poorly in media". That, or I have simply missed the specific sentences in the paper that talk about it. The source also does not say that "sexual aspects and zoophilia being a main source of controversy" of the media coverage. The source does not use the word "controversy" or any variant of it at all. The paper simply talks about there being media coverage, and the fandom having sexual aspects (including zoophilia). It does not connect these two topics or make any of the claims that were added to the article.

After my revert Waka Waka added a second source, which, as far as I can tell, also does not talk about any sort of controversy and seems to be a weak source to begin with, being part of a bachelor's thesis from a Department of Art, Design, and Art History from the perspective of a furry, instead of being a scientific paper or study dealing with the subject.

In addition, Waka Waka has now added the originally used source twice. One where the pages "1-21" are cited, which just so happens to be the entire document, and another one where the pages "1349–1369" are cited, which also happens to be the entire document, just with a different page numbering. That seems like an odd attempt to make it look like the statement is supported by multiple sources when it's, well, not. I'm having a hard time finding a good faith argument for doing this.

I suggest to remove the recent addition. The sources just don't support it. Especially given the countless articles out there these days that are quite positive about the fandom ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], just to take a few random examples from a 2 minute google search. All of these could reasonably be used in the article). --Conti|✉ 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't know I repeated the source twice so saying it was an "attempt to make it look like the statement is supported by multiple sources when it's, well, not" is presuming bad faith since it was a normal mistake, what it doesn't look like a mistake is why your first edit in more than 2 years is just to revert my edition with sources. Wikipedia:Ownership of content

2) You can change the content and how is structured but you CAN'T remove zoophilia allegations considering its mentioned in the source -you like it or not- and is illegal -abuse of animals- in most places, that's why is controversial, more or less the same logic applied to the similar genre known as lolicon. Not mentioning zoophilia allegations makes the article not neutral. You can't dictate what the article may or may not say if the sources mention something you maybe don't like or controversial.

3) You claim my edits "aren't supported by the source" when the source mention zoophilia and you agree it too. So, basically you are deleting sourced information so what's the problem? If you have issues with the wording I said about the fandom being "poorly received" only you can change that part. Waka Waka (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2 & 3, you cannot take information in the source and interpret it with your own conclusion. That is considered WP:OR. So if the source has not called it a "controversy" you cannot phrase it that way.

In addition, as Conti says, someone's thesis is not a reliable source we can use here to support this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what word you want to use to mention zoophilia allegations without calling it a controversy? I mean, we should interpret the source somehow. Waka Waka (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid loaded terms when they're not used by a source. And no, we do not "interpret" sources. Also, something is wrong with your signature, that causes it to jump onto a new line, which is messing with reply indentation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we are doing plagiarism if we said the exact words as the source, I tried to be the less invasive I can while applying common sense to refer to an illegal sexual practice so tell me again which you didn't answer, how do you suggest replacing that sentence? Waka Waka (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we rephrase to avoid plagiarism, but we do not insert concepts not in the source.

I do not currently have time to devote to devising a new phrasing, that'll have to wait. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, here are the proposed sources:

Guerrier, Jacqueline Daniell (2014). "Bringing out the animal in me: An examination of art and the individual within the Furry subculture" (PDF). Honors College at JMU Scholarly Commons.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Hsu, Kevin; Bailey, J. (2019-07-01). "The "Furry" Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 48: 1–21. doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7.

The first one doesn't appear reliable.

The second one pretty quickly gets deep in the weeds of sexology as it discusses the relationship between furries and erotic target location error. It does discuss this more broadly though, such as with this quote:

Some articles have even asserted that furries do not have any sexual motivation, unusual sexual interests, or unusual sexual practices. The recent tendency for both furries and the media to minimize or completely deny sexual motivation may represent a response to social stigma. This stigma is partly due to the early media portrayals of furries that emphasized unusual sexual interests and practices (e.g., Gurley, 2001; Zuiker et al., 2003), which are stigmatized in and of themselves (e.g., BDSM; Wright, 2006). Non-furries do tend to perceive furries negatively (Roberts, Plante, Reysen, & Gerbasi, 2016), and furries tend to perceive that they are stigmatized (Kington, 2015; Plante et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2015). Furthermore, many furries worry about the negative consequences of revealing their identity as a furry (Mock, Plante, Reysen, & Gerbasi, 2013; Roberts et al., 2015). Thus, furries may wish to downplay any sexual motivation that might exist in order to reduce social stigma. For similar reasons, they may also be cautious about, if not hostile toward, media and research that address the possibility of sexual motivation.[6]

The lead should do a better job of summarizing the body, but adding this to the lead would be a step backwards. Calling this a 'controversy' is absolutely not going to cut it. Start with context from a reliable source. Don't work WP:BACKWARDS. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]