Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 8

message: Archived debate, as it's gone completely off-topic. Feel free to start a new header about the subject of artwork in the article. -- Kesh
Think about the children! --24.47.71.87 or something like that, 16 Oct 2007, 6:23 PM EST  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno if it would be removed. Why the children would be looking at the term "Furry fandom" or "yiff" in the first place? Any way, Wikipedia is not censored. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia may be uncensored, but I take that to mean that material unsuitable for minors may be included where appropriate; I don't think it's meant to be taken as a license to include adult material in articles just because you can.  See my earlier comment regarding WP:PORN and WP:PROFA.  Again I would pose the question, does it add value to the article to include an example of adult furry artwork, or is it sufficient to discuss the existence of such artwork?   --Mwalimu59 15:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm full of apathy on the issue. My only concern was to check if the art was actually uploaded by the artist. The image is from ru.wikipedia.org, and I couldn't read a word of it, but some google searching leads me to his art galleries, so it seems legit. -- Kesh 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it does add value, though I would personally prefer a more tasteful example if we're going to have one (something with a background would be nice, too). Of course, freely-licensed trumps better - and it is fairly representative of the average beefcake pinup - but still . . . GreenReaper 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Animal porn is a central part of furry culture, and it should be included. I have the artist's permission for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JollySkUG.jpg to use on Wikipedia. I also got permission for the image of the two Pokemon "yiffing" each other with their mouths. Thanks --72.207.228.114 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll excuse me if I ask around and see if I can find an actual furry image that can be used as an example, rather than something that's basically one step above a stick figure. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks pretty furry to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gayfurries.jpg I think most furries are gay or bisexual (according to the page) so this seems like the best image to use.--Nationalism 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lasted four minutes. If we must have an image of "furry porn" on the article, I believe the discussion above suggests that it should be more tasteful. That's what we're looking for. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say that "most" furries are gay or bisexual.  There are quite a bit more than in the general population, but straight furs aren't exactly a small minority. --Mwalimu59 09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less than a third of furries reported being straight--Nationalism 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in terms of precentages, it goes bi, straight, then gay. So statistically, a furry is more likely to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. ISD 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True...  If you were to count all of the bisexuals who lean toward gay or lean toward straight as gay or straight respectively, then straight would have a clear majority.  The proportion of gays, although quite a bit higher than in the general population, would still have them as the minority.  --Mwalimu59 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the most preposterous argument and twisting of numbers I've ever seen; It's comical. I, using the same logic, could say the exact opposite. Using the very liberal (and suspect) figure of 10% of the general population being homo- or bisexual can then go on to say that a furry is more than six times as likely to be attracted to a member of the same sex as a non-furry. I mean come on now. Over half of the community identifies as gay or bisexual with a further 8% being "undecided". If the shoe fits than wear it. NeoFreak 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you could remain civil and simply disagree. That said, this whole tangent is off-topic. -- Kesh 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an important topic. Why do furries prefer the opposite gender? Normal people read this page and see all of these crazy facts and they just say, "I can't believe it. This is hilarious!" and furries just sit back in amazement and blame prejudice or bigotry. They just don't see how warped they are from reality. Being gay isn't wrong, but why do animals/homosexuality/Ayn Rand (furries also wrote-in overwhelmingly for "objectivist" when describing their political views) - why do they all come together? Obviously there is some psychological element to it that remains unexplored. Additionally, why is calling someone homosexual in a purely scientific sense "not civil"? Homosexuality is not a stigma on Wikipedia--Nationalism 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: …you completely misread my entire statement. The "not civil" comment was referring to the "preposterous" and "comical" comments. Secondly, this is off topic to the Talk page, as this is only for discussion of improving the article, not the subject. As such, I'm archiving this debate. -- Kesh 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the porn. NOW. 

message: ( started by Gnurd 02:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure> 

message: While I believe Nationalism's reasoning is way off the mark, I have to say that the current edits he/she has made do read better (for the most part). I don't think there were any weasel words, but the majority of the changes were minor and simply clarify their sentences.
I inherently disagree that the original versions were "slanted" though, and would urge Nationalism to cut back on claiming editors are promoting a pro-furry viewpoint. We can edit this article without resorting to drama. -- Kesh 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism's edits 

message: I have just removed one of two pictures inserted into the "Sex and furry fandom" section, specifically the Max Cooncat image of an aroused male fox. The female pic remaining is a little more softcore (though sticky) and serves as a reasonable representation of yiffy art without being too explicit. Earlier discussions indicated that the male pic was too over the top as well. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, both of those pictures appear to be up for deletion on Commons. Bah. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures, again 

message: Guys, this is enough. The vast majority of "facts" on this talk page have no evidence to back them up, whether pro- or anti-furry. A huge discussion, so far, is about whether ALL furries are sexually interested in anthropomorphic animals. If anyone can find good, independent, reliable sources to prove this true or false and meet the criteria for a verifiable source, then it can be acknowledged as plausible fact one way or the other. As people within the fandom claim that they are not sexually interested in anthropomorphics, we have to accept that as a possibility, with no other research or verifiable source to say otherwise. If you believe differently, then you can express your view about it elsewhere.
That being said, the presence of erotic art is not necessary. The mere phrase "erotic art" is enough to give a reasonable mental image, as long as an image of high-quality, non-erotic art is on the page to give the reader an idea. And, while Wikipedia should not be censored, it should not be needlessly objectionable, either. The Phoenix 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining Professsional 

message: As per furry Tonyfox's request, the sentence "The convention, which contributes $2.5 million to the Pittsburgh economy, plans to return to the city every year 'for the foreseeable future'" is biased. The phrase "which contributes $2.5 million to the Pittsburgh economy" is biased because it is intended to show the good that furries do, but it has nothing to do with the section "Media Portrayal". 
While I recognize that furries get little good press, to slide this phrase in shows the article's pro-furry bias. Just because a fact is true and is mentioned in a reputable source does not mean it belongs in the article.--Nationalism (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the sourced fact into the Conventions subsection. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a good move. I think it just showed why the businesses in Philadelphia tolerate the furry conventions, but I can see where the fact can seem biased towards the furry fandom. I think that is appropriate for the conventions subsection. The Phoenix (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do they tolerate it, the Pittsburgh Convention and Visitor's Bureau specifically asked Anthrocon to come. I have notes from a panel on starting your own furry convention held yesterday at Midwest FurFest 2008, where Uncle Kage spoke about the time a five-member team from the Bureau "just happened" to be passing, invited him out to dinner, and asked him if Anthrocon had considered their shiny convention center. He asked them if they knew what furry was, and they showed him a three-ring binder filled with printouts of furry websites. Now, it is important to take the convention head's words with a grain of salt, but it seems clear they're good for business. Apparently dealers like furry cons too. GreenReaper (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: If I am correct in what your definition of a furry lifestyler is, I think we can add this video as a "See also". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnUDSBonub8 --Nationalism (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it would be appropriate, really.  It may illustrate a (somewhat extreme) example of the concept, but there's no indication that the man featured is aware of or has any connexion to furry fandom at large.  --Dajagr (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furry Lifestyler 

message: 48% reported bisexuality, 25% reported heterosexuality, 19% were homosexual, and 8% were uncertain. Additionally, 2% stated an interest in zoophilia, and fewer than 1% stated an interest in plushophilia.
there something wrong
:I've tried rewording it. It is meant to say that out of the 100% of people who took part in the survey, 2% also expressed an interest in zoophilia and fewer than 1% an interest in plushophilia. ISD (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 103%