Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 5

message: This and some other articles on Wiki are infamous for attracting controversy and bad edits. I personally think this version of the article is by far the best I've read in a very good while. More statistics, more updated and covering more subjects than what Rust had, would be extremely nice - if someone could just DO them. Congratulations is the word of the day. :) Henning 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people have been working on it. GreenReaper 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GOOD JOB :)

message: I've removed the NPOV template that was added by an anon. Let's see:
*Article contains sources which are NOT academic in defense of the fandom.
**First of all, it is allowed to use sources that are not academic in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details on this. We preferably use academic sources, but there are exceptions in which we can use non academic sources. For example, we can use the Anthrocon "Standards of Conduct" as a source to state what the Anthrocon Standards of Conduct are. 
**I've had a closer look at the sources and found not a single non-academic source that was actually "in defense" of the furry fandom. These sources mostly state details of the furry fandom that are, sadly, not covered in other, more reliable (per our standards) source.
*Also, a criticism section has been repeatedly removed by furry admins seeking to push their POV.
**As far as I can remember, the section that was removed a few times (with an extensive discussion on the talk page) basically said something in the like of "Furries suck, furriessucks.com says so!". We need reliable sources to say "Furries rule!", and we need reliable sources to say "Furries suck!". So please, give us some reliable sources that critizise the fandom for whatever reason, and we can work with that. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what? NPOV isn't showing two opposing points of view, it's not having either. We shouldn't have "Furries rule!" or "Furries suck!", we should report facts and leave it at that.TheWarlock 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't edited this article previously so I don't really know what the history of the page is, and realise that it probably attracts a fair bit of trolling; but it does feel as though it's at least somewhat POV, possibly due to some conflict of interest (it's understandable that editors might feel inclined - even if it's just subconsciously - to tone down sections that potray their subculture/interest/whatever in a negative light).  So, in my opinion, the template is probably warranted. - 85.210.50.158 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to some specific problem statements within the article? NeoFreak 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  If I did it would probably lead to debate over every specific statement, when I think it's more of a general thing.  It just seems that whenever a more "unsavoury" or controversial aspect of the fandom is brought up, it's done in an apologetic tone; for example, by stating that many furries disapprove of whatever is being mentioned.  Of course this is 100% accurate, but it would also be accurate to state - apologies in advance for the clumsy, extreme comparasion and evoking of Godwin's law - that many Nazis disapproved of the holocaust. - 85.210.50.158 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like it would be more POV to have these aspects of the fandom mentioned and for them appear unchallenged ("unapologetically", if you will).  In fact some of them might not get mentioned at all if it wasn't for the fact that many mass media portrayals of furries play up these aspects, which then obligates us to address them here and to set the record straight.  I think some readers come here thinking these mass media portrayals are basically fairly accurate, and then when they read the article and discover it doesn't bear out that representation of furries, they think the article must be biased.  (And as a historical note, most average citizens in Nazi Germany didn't know what was going on in the concentration camps, and were as shocked and horrified as the rest of us when they eventually found out.) --Mwalimu59 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is that attitude that he has a problem with: "us" and "set the record straight" is indicative of the effort to purposely portray the fandom in a particular light. NeoFreak 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, by "us" I was referring to the Wikipedia community, not to furry fans.  --Mwalimu59 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong but you are a self-proclaimed furry and the way in which you declare that "we" need to "set the record straight" by drawing on your own personal knowledge makes it very easy for people to percieve a conflict of interest at best and a bias a worst. NeoFreak 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think TheWarlock has it right this article isn't about taking sides it's about reporting the facts. Just because some people don't like/make fun of/whatever furries doesn't qualify their opinions for inclusion. Some people don't like Tartar sauce but that doesn't mean that article is POV because it doesn't include anti-tartar-sauce opinions. This is about facts not opinions. ---Ochlophobia 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a legit concern because the less wholesome aspects aren't being left out at all. The article already contains a whole laundry list of articles focusing on the less wholesome aspects (Vanity Fair, MTV Sex2K, CSI, et al.). Ochlophobia 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV template 

message: (Note - I've taken the liberty of moving this to its own section, since it seems to be a seperate question. -- Kesh 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest WikiFur's categories for vendors and publishing companies? Note that the line can be blurred, as many companies that originated in the furry fandom will have been set up by individuals and are still not very big. Regarding the adult nature, I would suggest a proportion of 1/4 to 1/3 is about in line with what you see at furry conventions, comparing the size of the adult and PG areas in art auctions. It's true that sex sells, but so does cute and fluffy without sex. As for comics, there are a huge variety of both mature and non-mature ones out there, and while the mature ones are by no means unpopular, the most updated and popular tend to be more family-safe than otherwise (see also the Belfry WebComics Index).  GreenReaper 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A flaw in your research.  You're assuming the furry fandom market is strictly underground material created by the fandom.  This is a great misconception.  Furry fans get the majority of their clean materials and collectibles from professional companies like Disney.  What you're doing would be equivalent to researching the anime market by only poling the hentai dojinshi vendors.  What you should do is look at the article here and see all the professional titles that are connected to the fandom for furry characters.  Any store that sells materials relative to such titles is supplying the fandom. Perri Rhoades 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research

message: I've taken the liberty of updating the archives. Archive 3 now has all Talk discussions from July through August, and I've created an archive for discussions from September through December (as all of those appear to have tapered off). If you want to continue any of the discussions that are now archived, please start a new topic here and do not edit the Archive page.
I've also added a navigation template to all four archive pages, to make it easier for those who want to read through them all in order. Hopefully someone finds that helpful. -- Kesh 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives updated 

message: It might help if you had a link to Bunny Boy in Ghastly's Ghastly Comic as a typical example of internet humor surrounding furries.  Clearly here internet humor treats furries in exactly the same way as it treats anime fans, and that'd be nice to say, but I think that is going a bit to far into OR.  So just linking an example is good.  JeffBurdges 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would it it help? Comme le Lapin 06:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be in there. Inkbottle 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that it's better to have a reason why something should be included, beyond that there's no reason why it shouldn't be included. What I meant was that I don't understand exactly how including this would be helpful to the reader. Comme le Lapin 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Some mention would seem to be in order if the comic was mentioned in, say, the New York Times, but the actual reference in that case would be the New York Times itself, not the Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their comic into wikipedia as "critics say..." It's simply unnecessary and would detract from writing a serious article, IMHO. —Xydexx 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Goodness, I hope they do. Yiff is so much more interesting than YIFF. I'm sure the head developer thinks so, too - he is a furry, after all. :-) GreenReaper 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex stuff 

message: Should people with an affinity for anthro reptiles be added?  Someone told me it's a type of furry fandom (or yiffy)  LizardPariah 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: quick correction- yiffy and furry fandom are not the same thing.  it is probable that they both encompass scalies, but whereas f.f. includes the full explanation of the subculture, yiffy only pertains to the sexual aspect. It is a very important distinction. 75.68.122.55 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The main page already generically references "[anthropomorphic] animal characters" generically several times.  At best, I think the most notice that's warranted is a mention that, even though the term "furry" is used, it does not necessarily restrict the appreciation to animals with fur. --Dajagr 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there was at one time mention of the fact that "Furry" does not mean animals with fur, and that it also lumps in reptile, bird, bug and furry alien life form characters.  If it's been taken out it should be put back in. Perri Rhoades 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scalie??

message: I'd like to point out one thing that most furs tended to miss when they watched the episode of CSI. This was a little side that most people wouldn't notice. Grissom is either a fur, or thinks it's neat. At the end of the episode, after someone (I think it was Nick..) complains about it, they show Grissom's desk, which has a furcon mug, and I think a little plushie or something like that. Just something to add that should help restore people's views on Grissom, as I know one person that got really emotionally upset about his apparently negative reaction :)
- NemFX
:What does that have to do with this article? Inkbottle 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSI

message: " Too bad that'll never happen as users like Conti, Greenreaper and Xydexx make sure that nothing even remotely anti-furry will ever grace the pages of Wikipedia. Taking a look at most of the furry pages, most of these articles grasp at straws to find some sort of notability (like saying that one of Bon Jovi's music videos was really a covert furry video). --147.126.95.166 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prejudiced editing