Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 4

message: I just nipped this out, as it was unsourced and speculative. Opinions? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the heck put that there?  --π! 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Er, well, a quick look at the history reveals User:Dalhusky.  This was only his second Wikipedia edit, the other of which was also questionable and reverted.)  --π! 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur with removal.  The first "odd fact" seemed to reflect the notion that furry is largely a sexual fetish.  --Mwalimu59 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was a joke, right? --Mwalimu59 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No. And this conversation never happened. 69.160.28.78 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Odd Facts" section

message: Many furry groups and conventions raise money for good causes, or otherwise sponsor charitable activities.
A subsection on this wouldn't be inappropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charitable works 

message: Are furries even real? I heard that they were just a creation of internet trolls to enrage those with a moral compass (Just like a shocksite!). Maybe the furry fandom is just an elaborate prank... Whirling Sands 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd have to be a pretty good prank to bring 2,489 people to Pittsburgh for Anthrocon 2006 (check out the media coverage section). But you're a troll, so you should know that. :-) GreenReaper 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is not relevant to the discussion of this article; I strongly suggest deleting it.Comme le Lapin 07:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious 

message: Fan creations section: Unsourced
Art and writing: Unsourced
Role playing characters: Sourced only for one of its many claims
Conventions: Final statement of second paragraph unsourced.
Furry lifestylers: final statement of first paragraph unsourced. Claims of furry lifestylers and the fandom being considered seperate UNSOURCED and heavily disputed by me; an example of the pervasive "cleanness".
I've taken the liberty of adding  tags to a number of unsourced statements. Titanium Dragon 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool, much thanks. I'll lend a hand when I have some time. NeoFreak 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you examine the collective sources at the bottom of the page, you will find multiple items drawn from the same source.  Some of us just don't like to list the same source for every sentence, because it makes the article hard to read.  But the last time I looked, this article had references up the wazoo.  I think 30 references for an article of this length and obscurity is pretty remarkable.  And you will also note that Burned Fur is there, there’s an article on furverts, not to mention CSI and Vanity Fair.  Perri Rhoades 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing issues 

message: The following comment is found under the "convention" section:
ROFL, Look at all those furfags waiting in line to fuck each other. MANTRAIN
This is clearly not appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apieterse (talk • contribs) .
:I'm not seeing that . . . do you mean in this article, or another one? GreenReaper 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I'm a member of the furry fandom, But they'res one thing I dislike about this article...  Not all furrys will do fursuiting and all that, I am what I call a more "Sane" Type of furre, So I dont do fursuiting. I do however belive in animal spirits, Like some furry art, And stuff like that. Wolfpawz 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it implied that all furries do fursuiting? (or that fursuiters are insane,, for that matter :-) GreenReaper 16:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm A furry!