Talk:Yiff/Archive 1

message: Re: the 2008/8/8 edit. The longer-than-necessary details of the politics in
Furry were given the chop. Concise is Nice.
:Please, don't just revert articles and/or remove information without an actual reason to do so. If you think that something should be rewritten, then by all means, do so, but keep in mind that more information on a given subject is a Good Thing(tm). Concise may be nice, but it's even nicer to have an article that gives as much background as possible for those who do not known about it from elsewhere. -- Schnee 11:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Viewed from the perspective of somebody who is on the outside of Furrydom (but looks in now and then), Schnee's edits are much more informative, and neutral enough POV.  The politics are there, whether people want to "deal" or not, and how furries handle "Yiff" in the future will, I think, define what it means to be part of the movement.  Always add, never  subtract is a major part of how ALL wikis generically work, and would be my advise to the anonymous editor in this case on Wikipedia.  -- Feedle 08:10, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Concice is indeed a good thing, but not if it removes some information present in an article. I do believe that there is more information in the version provided by Schnee, and therefor shoud be used in preference to the shorter, but less informative discussion.  -- Darkhorse 21:45, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics in Furry 

message: Removed from article:
"However, there is also a comparatively-small movement of those horrified by the word's sexual connotations that exists to alter the popular usage of what is arguably furry fandom's commonest piece of jargon into something more generally acceptable. This movement's agenda is to advertise furry fandom as a friendly, tolerant, and, most importantly, clean community; most furries, though, feel that doing so takes away an important part of what it means to be furry, arguing that, even though furry fandom encompasses much more than just sex, the sexual side of furry fandom cannot and should not be denied.
Furries generally tend to ignore these controversies, but occasionally, the matter surfaces again; for example, at the 1997 Anthrocon in Albany, New York, three different groups (the proponents of the sexual connotation of the word, the opponents thereof, and a faction tired of the entire controversy as a whole) all took to writing "I'M YIFFY!" on their name-badges; the confusion and ill karma this generated in the extremists provided great amusement to the convention attendees."
1. Non-NPOV
2. Makes little sense
Anyone familiar with this please rewrite or explain.  
Exploding Boy 13:19, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
:makes little sense to someone who's calling himself a Furry (me) too. --Conti|✉ 08:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there *was* a group calling themselves the "Burned Furs" who were on what might be viewed as a crusade / jihad against the association of sex with furrydom (in whatever way). Also, why's the above part NPOV? -- Schnee 15:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text that makes little sense 

message: This article seems a bit more like an article than a dictionary entry to me, and furthermore Furry#Seuality refers to this article as a source for more detail about that subject. Does anyone else think we should leave it here? Bryan 07:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay. There's certainly more than two paragraphs that could be said about it, although admittedly I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do so. I'm sure someone must be though, so this looks more like a page in need of attention, not moving. ShaneKing 07:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll recategorize it as such then, since there's been no further comment. Perhaps fortunately, I don't have much to add on this subject myself. :) Bryan 04:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, I didn't even see this. ^^ Anyhow, I agree with ShaneKing; it should stay. -- Schnee 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Really a Wiktionary candidate?

message: I talked about furry polictics because that subject is unavoidable within the role of "yiff" in the furry community. I tried my best to be neutral, but I believe I failed miserably. Someone please go there and make it NPOV. Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 02:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  on NPOV 

message: Would this count as a yiff image?  http://img228.echo.cx/img228/466/pbf003bcbunnypit2ik.jpg
If yes, I believe it can be included as fair use.  219.93.174.107 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut feeling is that the image linked to there isn't yiff; I'd say that yiff would be more sexually explicit than that, but it's hard to set exact boundaries and so others may disagree. Loganberry (Talk) 01:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! Quite funny, although I think it's a little questionable to take advantage of one's children like that... Anyway, back to your question, yeah, the sex is only hinted at (although the results from it make it quite clear what has been going on ^,^) so I wouldn't consider this particular comic yiffy. Also, I agree that Yiff is mostly used when talking about more human-like funny animals. 85.226.122.222 06:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiff as pure animal or animal human hybrids only 

message: *To Yiff = infinitive verb form
*Yiff = verb / noun
*Yiffy = adjective
*Yiffily = adverb
*Yiffiness = noun
DyslexicEditor 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I took a look at this page from WP:RFC to see what the big deal is. First, the picture, to me, seems perfectly relevant and helpful. It seems to me that it is a perfect example of "yiffy artwork" as described in the article. Second, the caption is much less helpful. Perhaps "Yiffy artwork" would be more helpful. Conti, please refrain from deleting the image unilatteraly. There is no consensus to remove it. James 21:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Prior to James' edit I moved the drawing down to the "art" section. That moves it off the "first screen". -Willmcw 22:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
===Get Third Opinion===
I have no real idea what this dispute is about.  I think that this is basically a dispute between two editors, and that a Third Opinion is more in order than a formal Request for Comments.  I will not provide the Third Opinion.  Robert McClenon 00:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment 

message: I have no real idea what this dispute is about.  I think that this is basically a dispute between two editors, and that a Third Opinion is more in order than a formal Request for Comments.  I will not provide the Third Opinion.  Robert McClenon 00:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Third Opinion

message: The current picture under Erotic or pornographic art is what we call scat and waterplay (piss and shit). When I seen that I was frightened in my seat.
I don't think we (Furry Artists) want to use this picture (scat and waterplay) to represent all Yiffy Furry Artworks.
James rejects my picture because he doesn't accept the fact I have full copyrights on this artwork (I have a signed contract, yes). I don't really mind, put anything else but : remove this horrible picture ! --Ozone Griffox 00:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you make it clear on the image's page that the article can be placed here under GFDL, I have no problems with it. James 00:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
It is done. I have read carefully the GFDL and the contract I signed with Ian Rain. I can change the status of this file as I wish. It is now under the GFDL as requested. --Ozone Griffox 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes. Whatever the specifics of the copyright situation, if you post a screenshot showing chat comments from people who haven't given their permission to be shown here, you'll have some extremely unhappy people on your case very quickly. Loganberry (Talk) 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: A while ago, wikipedia voted against image censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images
SnowConeYellow 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To get an idea on how to handle this, it might help to look at the article on Pornography, which is a roughly analogous article, for comparison. Images include historical pornography, like the cover of the first Playboy. Maybe a cover image from an early Furry Pornography Zine? --RainR 07:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: .... and in the end, some nameless one just changes it in another thing without warning, thank you for that Community. Should've heard her advice.... Kobayen 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A) We don't need any pictures. B) The copyright status of these two pictures is unclear. "Fair use" is tricky, and "by permission" alone is not allowed. C) For those reasons maybe we should just delete them. -Willmcw 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As being the one who upped the Mamabliss ones, I say go for it. It's just the best I could arrange, within laws, permissions, taste and requirements (one hetero, one gay). If one have a better idea, I'm listening.  And as far as I researched on previous Wikipedia decisions, 'Fair use' is tricky, but not reason alone to delete them -- else, almost all media in Wikipedia would have been taken down already. Kobayen 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, fair use violations are reason to remove pictures, but this violation is not clear cut. Why does this article need pictures? Why does it need those pictures?  Why is it a "requirement" to have "one hetero, one gay" image?  The long-standing initial picture is unobjectionable and I suggest we leave it at that. -Willmcw 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I've seen this is a very controversial question allright -- I'm happy people are debating before acting -- but the general consensus in the talk page were 'find something, but find something good', and 'one hetero, one gay, to show the whole gamut'. Hence my additions. Of course, that was my interpretation, maybe we should ask everyone or vote or something. Kobayen 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm.... "One hetero, one gay" is painfully far from "the whole gamut." Don't go for the gamut or it will eat ya. :) Ekevu (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Well, there is a modified version now. I think they're okay, but I will not revert if someone removes it. If you believe the pictures shouldn't be there, be bold and remove them. Illustrating would be good, the illustration that is there is far from the best, but I'm too lazy to go after something better. :) Ekevu (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Erm... Hadn't noticed that. The label is wrong, and even if it wasn't, it's POV. I'll just remove it along the lines of inappropriateness. Just because we can illustrate, it doesn't mean we have to. Ekevu (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking there, Ekevu -- guess twas needed. Now let's see if people will keep complaining. Kobayen
I would like to thank whoever created the new picture for the new example of "Yiffy" artwork. Nice work, it seems to not offend anyone, and it's actually work safe. Nice job! Offthewall234 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiffy Picture Artwork 

message: The amount of weasel language in this article is impressive. Fredrik | talk 18:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Debates section is a weasel term zone. :P But if you have a better idea about this section, just show it! -- Ekevu (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But whatever happened to ferret terms and otter words? I tell you, weasels get all the credit. :-) --Zetawoof 20:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels 

message: Hi, I read the wikipedia article on self referencing. I have in no way referenced a part of wikipedia in adding citation needed tags. However, as the information I tagged as needing citation is speculative discussion. As such, I am moving it here to the discussion page: 
Simplistically, it could be said that there are two main strands of thought about yiffy art, as follows:
* Something is wrong with furry fandom
: This group includes some of the professional artists mentioned above, as well as those who object to yiff as a whole. They generally believe that the behaviour of many members of the fandom is highly perverted, ignoring taboos in a way which they feel is bad for the well-being of society as a whole. Solutions proposed often run among the lines of combating, limiting, and/or hiding potentially offensive artwork. In honor of this, many if not most fur artists keep potentially offensive material in separate portfolios that are clearly marked "adult." This includes many artists who don't follow this strand.
* Something is wrong with human society
: This group includes some of those involved in MUCKs and forums, a number of artists, and many people who believe that free speech is vital to free society, since by its nature yiff cannot be totally devoid of artistic value. They generally believe that adults should be free to decide for themselves what type of art to create and view, and they argue that there is a wide range of furry artwork suitable for all ages available from sites such as Yerf and even mainstream sources such as Warner Bros (e.g. Pinky and the Brain) or Disney (e.g. The Lion King). Some even suggest that the stigma is good thing in that it keeps away the elements of society that many furs are trying to get away from in the first place. Solutions proposed often run among the lines of pride campaigns, making it clear that artists are not ashamed of their works, and see nothing wrong with them.
Okay, that sounds great! Lotusduck 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... ... Fine, I admit, this is indeed original research. I inserted this myself (a smaller, worse worded version of it anyway) from my personal experience when this was a deletable pitiful stub. Well, I'm glad the article no longer needs it to survive, I blame, however, the journalists for never having brought this important discussion up. :P But, out there, there is some good articles around that somewhat go through this without the usual sensacionalism... But I haven't bookmarked. :( I'll look those up and bring them within the next weeks, when I get the time. • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self referencing 

message: I have found Chakat a furry article.  While I understand, ContiE, who owns and controls all the furry articles on wikipedia goes around reverting me and refusing to discuss things, I want to ask, is there a reason why Chakat is not furry?  Arights 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chakat is a species, not a "sexual context". In brief, it appears to be irrelevant in this article, and particularly so in the place where you put it. To be fair, I'm not even sure what the original sentence meant ("variations of sexual context"?), so I've rewritten it significantly. It's still somewhat redundant, but at least it's understandable now. Zetawoof 10:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chakat 

message: I was told, I think by Kimi The Ribbonizer, that 'Yiff' was originally simply a neutral expression of surprise made on one occasion by a non-morphic fox character upon stumbling across a couple of characters engaged in sex in a bush. From that incident, it was rapidly adopted as the fox word for 'sex', and then the 'sound of foxes mating' etymology in the main article took over. This is digging back... several years into prehistoric memory, I'm afraid, but it seems to accord with 'The Origin of Yerf' cited above. - Warwick@FM SleekWeasel 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put that in the article, you'd need a better source than that, I'm afraid... Beno1000 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More etymology 

message: The page was nominated for deletion about six months ago. Old news. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion on Yiff 

message: I've added two references and removed the  tag. At this point, individual  tags should probably be used for any individual statements that need sources. -- Dragonfiend 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also looks like this article could be redirected to furry fandom which is better sourced and covers this topic already. -- Dragonfiend 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've removed some uncited parts that were hanging with  tags. I've added some  tags to uncited parts. I've added tags to indicate that the article is unsourced, and could contain original research. - Francis Tyers · 11:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  just because the topic isn't a scholarly one doesn't mean it can't be encyclopedic.  I personally am very glad that Wikipedia/Wikimedia doesn't restrict itself to things covered in other reference works, but is instead able to use all sorts of sources of information to be more comprehensive than any paper work ever could.  Milto LOL pia 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I've removed the uncited portions of text. The citation needed tags were attached for long enough. If someone wishes to re-introduce the text, please do it with appropriate reliable sources per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Additionally I've removed the fair use image as it doesn't have a fair use rationale. - Francis Tyers · 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding uncited information to the article. It goes against Wikipedia policy. According to WP:V, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". WikiFur is not a reliable source, it is a dubious source, "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)." (WP:V). It has no editorial oversight and no fact-checking facilities. - Francis Tyers · 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article given here does not mention "yiff". And does not support the sentence to which it is attached, 'Examples of the word's present usage include "a yiffy fur", meaning a furry who is sexually aroused or active, "yiffy artwork", meaning sexually explicit furry artwork, "to yiff", meaning to have sex, etc.'. Accordingly it will be removed. - Francis Tyers · 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a closer look at the sources before you remove them. The Pitch article does mention yiff, just not on the first page of the article. --Conti|✉ 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've readded it. - Francis Tyers · 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Odd - we often get complaints about our editorial oversight, but not because we don't have any. GreenReaper 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have linked to livejournal. - Francis Tyers · 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Because, you know, that's where the furry fandom is. They're talking about WikiFur, in case it wasn't obvious. :-) GreenReaper 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've re-inserted much of them that sounds like it probably can be verified - including info and hunting for cites later is probably better than just getting rid of it altogether, and since your comments above suggest that you're nuking stuff due to not being interested in yiffiness and are just repeating yourself about Wikifur.  A first-hand source for a subculture-specific concept ought to do fine for the reasons I stated above.  I encourage any interested editors to find sources for this true info.  I'll start once I work up the courage to google "yiff".  Milto LOL pia 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the uncited information. Please feel free to reinsert it once it is supported by reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-inserted it per above and your total refusal to discuss the sourcing.  Milto LOL pia 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've commented on wikifur in particular, and you have said "it's a dubious source".  Not at all helpful.  Milto LOL pia 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the guideline at WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions." - Francis Tyers · 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I invite you to show me the policy which says that sources for slang must be different from the sources on history. All sources must be reliable. Random blogs or wikis and forum posts are not acceptable anywhere in Wikipedia. Ayatollah's hashish 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think GaryFx may have been getting at is that there is a perception that this article has been singled out for strict enforcement of policies that are frequently overlooked or sporadically enforced in other comparable articles.  Perhaps if someone here were to identify several of these articles (preferably from diverse and unrelated categories so there isn't a perception that certain categories are being targeted for selective enforcement) we should go scrutinize those as well, and trim down or even AfD them as appropriate.  --Mwalimu59 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly. - Francis Tyers · 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They must be both reliable sources and encyclopedic. If you want, try rewritting the article, but be careful: I suspect that tigerden.com is just a homepage and therefore not a reliable source according to our standards. Ayatollah's hashish 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a homepage.  The FAQ, however, is to the Usenet newsgroup alt.lifestyle.furry, and should indeed be a reliable source for this purpose.  There is probably a better host from which to obtain it; newsgroup FAQs tend to be mirrored all over the place, and that particular one may not be the most up-to-date version.  Nevertheless, it suffices. Shimeru 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're not aware that a FAQ is not the same as a Usenet post.  FAQ is "Frequently Asked Questions," compiled by members of a given Usenet group as an introduction to new participants.  It is not the opinion of a single user (although it is often maintained by a single user). Shimeru 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hae no doubt that his is well aware what a FAQ is. This FAQ is not acceptable as a source as it is an original product of an established unreliable source. NeoFreak 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but it's not unreliable for this purpose.  These are not controversial claims, so primary sources are valid.  (Admittedly, I may be mistaken; if you have contrary sources showing otherwise, please feel free to correct me.  My research did not turn up any particular controversy regarding the definitions of 'yiff' or 'tinysex'.) Shimeru 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find alot of places that claim alot of things esp on the internet. That doesn't mean I'm going to use them as "primary sources" in an encyclopedia article. The FAQ in question is a "self published source" according to the guildline on reliable sources. Translation: it is not a reliable source, read the guidline again, it has sections that address this exact issue. Primary sources still have to establish credability through professional, journalistic or academic means or presentation. One of the few exceptions to this is the case of the subjects of living person biographies but that is a very rare and very sticky exception. Before you ask, no demographics do not count as "collective living biogrpahies". NeoFreak 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the RS guideline.  I just disagree with your interpretation of it.  To my mind, applying the criteria concerning "non-scholarly sources" results in net positives.  As I noted elsewhere, FAQs have been generally accepted as reliable sources for purposes related to their respective newsgroups, and they are neither personal blogs, personal Usenet posts, nor personal webpages.  The Jargon File, for instance, is fairly widely cited.  Numerous Internet-related articles cite a variety of FAQs.  And this is, after all, an Internet-spawned neologism.  If the argument is that FAQs should not be acceptable as sources, then that's a valid argument, but this isn't the correct forum to make it in. Shimeru 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You've found a few mentions in reliable sources, great! I still think it should be merged and redirected to Furry fandom. But it is good work you've put in. - Francis Tyers · 11:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, and I would disagree.  I'm certain there's more out there, so the article could be further expanded.  I won't be the one to do it, since the subject makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but given a topic I knew to be both notable and verifiable, I was compelled to do this much.  Any personal biases I may have are, after all, irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia. Shimeru 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources