Talk:Furry fandom

RainRat and GreenReaper have pledged rewards of $150 and $50 for the first featured article and first ten good articles within this topic area according to their rules. Please check out the Wikipedia reward board for more information on how you can help yourself!

Archives
Talk:Yiff Archive June 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 – June 2008

Anti-Furry PSA

I don't know whether this should go under media coverage or under furry criticism. http://i38.tinypic.com/2zz7s7d.jpg --72.207.228.109 (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! --Draco 2k (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The scary thing is, it appears to be real (although it's not a PSA so much as a means to advertise iG - internet Generation and their tools). There's three ads at the first link, so you can collect the whole set! I've emailed the advertisers and iG to try and figure out their actual intentions, though I fear my Brazilian Portuguese is not up to much (perhaps I can ask the organizer of Abando to translate). GreenReaper (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wha? Did you actually email them or are you joking? Seems to me that the intended meaning is just that it's a stuffed animal (like a kid might have) taking off its "clothes", which is something a kid shouldn't see. If it was a human taking off its clothes it would probably make more literal sense, but that wouldn't be as funny (or publishable). -kotra (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like a general-type ad under the sun. Though, of course, it'll be interesting if it turns out otherwise - do folk at iG actually suspect parents to know and protect their kids from furry porn?.. Heh. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a real ad that references furries so unless you guys have any objections I think it should be added because we currently don't have any furry criticism in the article right now. --72.207.228.109 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really did email them - in English and poorly-translated Portuguese. I've not yet heard anything back from the advertising agency or iG. The title of the advert is "Stuffed Animals", not "Furries"; it seems presumptive to assume that it is actually intended to be about furries without any reference to back that up. GreenReaper (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest the ad targets furry fandom specifically rather than being general-purpose. For example, it would also be rather silly to assume Sonic the Hedgehog hails from somewhere inside the fandom, wouldn't it? If you have anything to back up the assumption, please, feel free to add it to the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The ad doesn't target the fandom, it targets parents who are concerned their children might look at furry drawings or videos.--72.207.228.109 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be really surprised if the ad was supposed to be about furries, simply because they aren't mainstream enough use in advertising. It would make far more sense for them to be making a comment about "toys with their clothes off". Given that, I'd want to see a reliable source stating that the ads were specifically referring to furries. If such a source was present, of course, then it would be excellent in the article. Without it any discussion here would just drawing on interpretations of a primary source, which would constitute original research. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even that's inferring quite a bit from one picture. Can you point us to sites that refer to it, other pictures in a series it is part of, etc., that corroborate this? Looking at all three ads in the series, and without anything better to go on, I'm more inclined to interpret them to carry a message about porn on the internet rather than anything to do with furries. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources suggesting that the ad does, indeed target such audiences, please, feel free to add it to the article. Mentioning it otherwise would constitute Original Research, however. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest emailing the ad company that produced the campaign? I am the user that found this ad and posted it here. --Nationalism (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read above, I mentioned that I did. I have not (yet) got a reply. GreenReaper (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which, I'd guess, is mainly due to the creators laughing their asses off. Not to say I'm not waiting for reply any less eagerly. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to do a little more digging on the ad campaign and found a couple of references - here and here. The campaign appears to be recently launched so there hasn't been a lot of time yet for people to react to it. Near as I can determine it appears to be promoting the parental controls available from iG. Admittedly I'm curious why the ad text is in English if the target audience is in a Portuguese speaking country. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>*facepalm* Guys, it's not a furry-targeted ad, I can pretty much guarantee that. The "protect kids on the internet" hook suggests that it's targeted at parents reminding their kids that taking their clothes off and sending pictures of themselves to strangers is not a good thing to do (sadly, this seems to be a message that's missing these days). Note that each of the plush is either partly or fully out of its fur and looking bashful; they're using the plushies to represent kids. It's not "aaaah kids will find this evil furry art" or anything. (If it was, they'd have used foxes, considering their prevalence in the fandom. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Furry suits used in German Carnival

• 
  Lake of Constance Chicken
• 
  Goat
• 
  Lake of Constance Rabbit
• 
  Wine Leave

,

Southwestern Germany has a long tradition of Therianthropy during local carnival. For veganites: It includes even costumes simulating vegetable beings. I think its worth while to have a look on the widespread scientific literature in that field, since I assume some of the results apply to furrydome respectively there might be already some studies about the parallels. I had started a discussion in the German wikipedia and am willing to share some of the results if of interest here. BTW those costumes IMHO are much cooler than the typical Disney Furry... --Polentario (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Technically, such tribal costumes can very well fall under the Fursuit category, however, the current definition of Fursuit itself on the Wiki is rather shady: "Animal costumes assosiated with the furry fandom" - but what kind of "associated"?

I'm sure this would make an interesting addition to the article - but first one will need a reliable source or two about what "Fursuit" really means so we know it's even relevant. I'll try to poke a few places, but I can't promise anything. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of this fasnet (carnival) costumes and Furries share a hang for anthropomorphism and as well for disguise - which can be used to address political critisism, , sexual desires and other nice but controversial topics. All the points about crossdressers, hidden sexuality and anarchist behavior have been discussed en detail with regard about Carnival. There is even a crime series about it (during Tatort)

• I fear you 'll find much more reliable sources about fasnet habits and carnival compared what is available about furries, but be daring and have a try.
• What I personally find very intresting: Those athropomorphic fasnet costumes are NOT at all oldfashioned, most of them came up as alte as around 1900 together with Art deco but were (mostly succeesfully branded) as being medieval. I can try to provide sources for that, but its mostly german probably. --Polentario (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic animal anything before the early 1980s is not furry. The furry fandom began in the early 80s (or the late 70s, depending on who you ask), so anything before then cannot, logically speaking, be called furry. For this reason, humanoid animal gods, Aesop's fables, Peter Rabbit, and Mickey Mouse are not considered furry (at least, by anyone other than a minority of furries). Instead, they are examples of anthropomorphic animals, talking animals, and/or funny animals. Yes, there are cursory similarities between these traditional costumes and fursuits, but they come from two different contexts and are two different things. -kotra (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Furry fandom is based on an interest in anthropomorphic animal characters; it's not a historical category. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your point. I agree that furry fandom is based on an interest in anthropomorphic animal characters, but just because something is an anthropomorphic animal doesn't mean it's furry. There is a difference between the thing one is interested in and the interest itself. Otaku (of the Western variety) are interested in Japan, but Japan is not otaku itself. The Nazis loved Wagner, but Wagner was not a Nazi. So then can furry fans love The Lion King or Native American mythology or Krazy Kat; but that doesn't make those things furry. So with these traditional costumes. -kotra (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a perpetual argument, but I'll bite - furry fandom, as a coherent movement under the name "furry", did not come about until the mid-1980s. This article is concerned with that movement. People previously and in separate places liked stuff that some now associate with the term "furry" - but that's a lot of stuff, much of which would fall under the definition of carnival depictions and/or representations of belief rather than modern fandom. Because there is no clear descent from furry fandom, nor clear that it is born from the same roots, it's probably best to record such things over at anthropomorphism or in a separate article - in the same way that kemonomimi (considered a form of moe anthropomorphism) is separate. Articles on the same base concepts approached in a different way by a different culture would make a great a "See also". GreenReaper (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Furry" is an interest in anthropomorphic characters; it encompasses these characters as much as interest in watches encompasses watches - that is to say, it doesn't.

This doesn't stop said things from being more than relevant to the fandom - it's subject, to be precise - but what to call this "relevance", and what to make of it?.. You can say teapots are relevant to tea, per se. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Though concerning this particular topic (therianthropy in local southwestern German festivals), it probably has about as much relevance to the average furry as, say, Snoopy—that is, very little. It may have more relevance to German furries, but on a global scale (which this article strives to achieve), I don't think it merits mention. -kotra (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't call it particularly notable off the bat either, but it's an open wiki, and I'm certainly not an expert in the field. I figure the whole idea of this discussion is establishing the state of relevance of these "fursuits" to anything else.

I think this could be mentioned in the Fursuit article along the lines of "see also" or something, like GreenReapear said, but I can't figure out how, where or, indeed, why. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are more or less in agreement, then. I'm not sure if it has enough relevance to fursuits to merit a "See also" link, but even if it did, I don't think we have an article on it. The best I came up with was Fastnacht, which is what the festivals are called. -kotra (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I guess we'll have to leave it at that unless someone says it's more notable than that, or comes up with more specific details. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FurAffinity redirect

Why the hell does FurAffinity redirects into this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.205.201 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FurAffinity is the art hosting service targeted towards the furry fandom and is mentioned as such in the article.

I believe Wiki had an article on it some time ago, but it was culled for failing the article guidelines (lack of citations, unverifiable notability, something else). --Draco 2k (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Draco is correct (well, other than the "the" - it's one of many). The relevant discussion is here. See also Yerf, Furtopia, the VCL (1, 2) and Yiffstar. Perhaps rather than having an article about each website, a section could be made about them here. The issue is sourcing, but primary or less-reliable secondary sources might suffice for non-controversial claims. GreenReaper (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any post-mortem copies left of these articles? If they were deleted a bit prematurely, surely some of the relevant content could be sewn into the main article - as you said - as a subsection, or otherwise. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These could be obtained from an administrator. Personally, I suspect it would be better to write them from scratch. GreenReaper (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Article revamp

I've tried to fix the article up a bit. Most major changes are: the survey data was cut and redistributed between other sections; a few sections were moved, cut and/or merged; a dozen unsourced or weasel-worded claims were either removed or reworded. I probably left something out in the process - the article will need a check-up and a review.

Below are some of the Survey Data leftovers and a Good Article criteria reminder - please remove the hat/hab templates over this if you feel like contributing or saying anything. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surveys and the Article How do you extract data from the surveys to something actually readable without removing most of the content? Also, can you cite Internet-only surveys, or at least mention them in Further Reading section? --Draco 2k (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'll put a list of survey data available so far over here - treat it as an open notepad, maybe someone will be kind enough to help out with this mess. Sources: 1 - Data from 1997-1998 survey [1] - This data might be obsolete due to a decade gap. || Refname = FirstSurvey 2 - Data from May, 2007 survey. [2] || Refname = SecondSurvey 3 - On-going online survey. [3] - This should be a reliable source. Check the link for mode details: http://www.klisoura.com/furrypoll.php || Refname = ThirdSurvey Note: The data below is also a description the polled group. It may or may not represent the fandom as such, or represent the surveys' bias. [Fandom-specific] Most furries (~80%) do not own a fursuit. (2) Most furries (~80%) consider themselves predominantly human. About 6% do not consider themselves human at all. (3) Most furries believe that visual art, conventions, literature, and online communities are strongly important to the fandom. Fewer believe that music is as important. (3) [Demographics] The fandom is undergoing a population growth (as of 1997-98). (1) A big part of new members to the fandom comes from the high-school or college student demography. (1) A large part of participants reported their residence as East and West coasts of United States, as well as eastern coast of Canada. (1) The majority of furry fans (~40%) are either college students or participate in collegial studies. (1)(2) Politically, 40% of respondents described themselves as "Liberal" or "Very liberal", contrasting with 7% who were "Conservative," or "Very conservative". 35% were "Not political" or "Other", and 16% were "Moderate". (2) Majority of the fans are American (~80%) caucasian (~80%) males (~80%). Nearly all respondents (~90%) reported earning less than $50,000 per year. (2) [Social aspects] Fandom members practice a wide range of views beliefs, with most younger members leaning towards agnosticism. (1) Members of the furry fandom seem to share certain social norms, like openness in body language, with science fiction and fantasy fandoms. (1) Around half of furries engage in furry-related Internet friendships, chat rooms, and blogging. (2) 42% furries attended conventions, ~30% attended parties, and ~15% took part in art auctions. (2) [Perception of the fandom] ~45% said that public reaction to furry fandom was either "negative" or "extremely negative". (3) ~15% said that they were responded to more negatively than the reactions of the general public. (3) A majority hold largely positive feelings towards conventions and fursuiters. (3) [Sexuality] Furries "report a rather non-judgmental attitude" to some aspects of sexuality. (1) The fandom contains a relatively large proportion of people reporting homosexuality (~25%), bisexuality (~40%), polyamory, or other forms of alternative sexual relationship (~8% said they were uncertain). (1)(2) 2% state an interest in zoophilia, and fewer than 1% stated an interest in plushophilia. (1) Furries have "a higher tolerance for variety in sexual orientation and activity". (1) Heterosexual furries "participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity". (1) About half of the respondents were in a relationship, and 76% of those in a relationship were having a relationship with another furry. (2) The majority are largely ambivalent towards plushophiles and ambivalent-leaning-negative towards zoophiles. (3) Feel free to edit; I'll try to condense this myself a bit later on. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I removed the Survey section from the article; everything crossed out on the list above is now part of the article itself. This is going to be a bit of a mess for now - needs rewording and better organisation. One could also conjure a "Demographics" section with the data left out as marked above. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Good Article reminder The article was nominated for the GA criteria about a year ago, but did not pass the check on few points. Since then, it might have seen some substantial improvement, but a few points remain still. Namely: Weasel words - This comes mainly from unsourced or ambiguous claims. Removing those is troublesome since they still seem to be core of the article, which is also a bad thing. This seems to be the main issue with the article. Neutrality. This is usually solved by adding criticism section or mentioning any negative aspects, but we don't have any reliable sources on that for now. Thus, simply avoiding using "good" qualifiers for anything concerning the fandom would be a good start - which, actually, does seem to be the case right now. This is not a pressing issue. Archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Furry_fandom/Archive_7#GA_comments --Draco 2k (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Another problem with weasel words: those that are there can't be accurately specified without reducing the article to a dry citation of numbers. "While most of the furries do not own a fursuit, a majority of them hold positive feelings towards fursuiters and conventions they participate in" -- becomes -- "While more than 80% of furries who participated in survey X and Y do not own a fursuit, more than 80% of those individuals describe their feelings towards fursuiters and conventions they might participate in as "positive". Which is rubbish. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC) This could use a peer review or something. I've skimmed through the article and picked a few bits here and there, but there are some things I can't help with, and probably a lot more I simply don't see. Other than a few minor problems and being incomplete in some areas, seems good to me. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More furry data!

Gosh I guess I didn't realize it was such a well defined phenomenon. Maybe there could be a reference to the musician Kanye West's furry leanings in the media section..I know at least two of his album covers contain his signature bear outfit, and he wore it in a video.

Also It might worthwhile and interesting to note in the Roleplaying section about the intense popularity and backlash for and against furries I've noticed in the online metaverse SecondLife! 71.239.189.97 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting. Of course, we can't mix up something pertaining to furry interest with something directly connected to the fandom in the article (no mention of Sonic or Starfox there either).

I know of at least one documentary about Furries/Second Life, but it's not even out yet. Either way, our hands are tied behind our backs without any reliable sources - do West's or SL website(s) make any mention of the fandom or at least the said mascots? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

The claim is taken nearly word by word from the following source (http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html ; cited after the claim itself in the article):

• "It should be worth noting that heterosexual males and females within Furry Fandom also participate in this social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity as a heterosexual. This seems to fly in the face of common sense unless it is seen as non-sexual by the participants and -rather- an element of a larger societal norm."

The current article version reads:

• "Heterosexual furries may participate in mixed-gender social body language between members of the same sex without being confused in their sexual identity. [...] "

If there is any rewording of disambiguation required to remain clear on the subject, please, be bold or mention it here, but don't remove fully-cited claims. Thank you. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's favourite question

How important is the whole sexual aspect of the fandom to an average furry? Furry survey actually offers some insight on that.

• According to it, most furries (~70%) rate the importance of sex (?) in their "furry lives" from "extremely small" to "medium", while placing the same importance for other furries from "medium" to "large" (~80%), and at "extremely large" (~50%) for general public's perception of the fandom.

Is there any way to sum up all of this? I'm sure that ought to adress some points, especially since we have a whole section dedicated to sexuality of the fandom anyway. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty biased. Furries are not going to tell normal people something that reinforces a negative stereotype about them. It'd be equivalent to a girl asking a man, "how often do you fantasize about me?". The man is not likely to answer honestly. --72.207.228.109 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's from an anonymous on-line survey, link is given above. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)