Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miltopia (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 7 November 2006 (→Questions regarding Furry: - omg labels). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
June 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – June 2006 July 2006

Furries suck.

Don't you think you should mention something about the fact that furries are the most opposed group of people on the Internet? Yeah, I admit it, I HATE furries and that's why I'm saying this, but even so I'm not gonna go vandalising your precious Misplaced Pages article. However, you should at least include a section about the anti-social attitudes of many furries, their tendancy to look down upon "mundanes," their victim complexes, etc. The level of educated, legitimate criticism leveled towards the general attitude of the furry fandom is FAR greater than that towards any other fandom or subculture. Within "fandom" in general, where different subgenres often get along, i.e. many anime nerds respect trekkies and vice-versa, furries are almost never seen as "equal" with anyone, and at the bottom of the chain.

Of course, I doubt any real furry would have the ability to see anything negative about their precious little world. -Anonymous /b/tard

If that sort of information is documented in a reliable secondary source, like some kind of book or study about internet culture that notes the special place occupied by furries at the bottom of the ridicule-chain, then we could include it. Otherwise, no. -GTBacchus 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement

I think we need to refocus our efforts on improving the article. I've had some ideas the past week or so, but work has kept me pretty busy. The sections on Conventions should be rewritten and expanded to include: the first furry convention (Confurence); the growth of furry conventions/gatherings held today; the "Big Three" furry conventions (Anthrocon, Further Confusion, Midwest FurFest), and mentioning the events scheduled at a typical furry convention. Fursuiting and Charity work could easily be broken out into their own sections. I added parades to the list for reasons for fursuiting; I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned considering Rapid T. Rabbit (host of a public access TV show for 20+ years now) always has a group in the Doo Dah Parade in Ocean City, NJ. —Xydexx 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalking Cat image

I'm not sure if the image is a good idea. Has this guy ever identified himself as a furry lifestyler, or are we just assuming he is one because he wants to be a tiger? I also don't like the Misplaced Pages trend to often use the most extreme images one can find to illustrate a subject. That guy certainly isn't a typcial example of a lifestyler, so the image might give a wrong impression to the readers. --Conti|✉ 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. The image should be removed unless GR can give a good reason to keep it. The Stalking Cat article doesn't once mention the Fandom. --π! 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard (don't quote me on this) Stalking Cat isn't even a furry fan, he just hangs around with furry fans because they don't give him flak. I understand he's a pretty nice guy, though I must admit I've only said hi to him in passing so haven't really asked him directly. —72.73.29.108 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. I've removed the image for now. -kotra 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed him about it. Will see what he says. He does, however, live with people who appear to be furry fans, and come to furry conventions. I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line between someone like Stalking Cat and a furry lifestyler, given that our current text seems to fit his description.

From the alt.lifestyle.furry FAQ:

0) What is alt.lifestyle.furry?

alt.lifestyle.furry (or ALF) is a newsgroup for and about people who relate strongly to animals and/or furries (see definition below) in a way that impacts their personalities and/or way of life.
...
Your lifestyle includes everything you _choose_ to do in your life. It's the behaviors that you use to define your life, the way you choose to conduct yourself in your personal life.
...

. . . You can purr when happy, you can stalk when angry . . .

If he's not representative, then what is a typical example of a lifestyler? GreenReaper 07:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that there is a copy of Anna Meets the Furries Pt. 3 which contains an interview with Cat. I've talked to him myself (briefly) at MFF 2005, and while he wasn't running out there in his whiskers, I think he was at that greymuzzle session, and he certainly seemed to be "one of the gang" (his reason for not being at AC 2006 was apparently lack of funds rather than lack of intent - he "loves furr cons").

To those protesting that Stalking Cat is "not a fan" - well, that may be the case, but the situation we have now is that furry lifestylers have been merged into the article for furry fans, and so they need to be be covered here. Perhaps this is just an example of why that merge is a bad idea. GreenReaper 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't knew whether he was a lifestyler/fan or not, so I asked. That wasn't my main point, tho. He could be a lifestyler, but is he a typical lifestyler? People who read the section will look at the image and think "So that's how a lifestyler looks like", and probably get the impression that you have to look like that to be a lifestyler. That's what I meant with giving a false impression. I just think we shouldn't show the most extreme examples just because we can, the section itself calls body modification in lifestylers "extremely rare". I'd consider a group of lifestylers howling at the moon or someone wearing a tail and/or ears to be a more typical example of a lifestyler, for example. --Conti|✉ 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. Obviously you're not a real lifestyler if you don't want to spend tens of thousands on body modifications. ;-)

Here is what Cat had to say (the entire reply):

ok I am a full on full time furr
I live my totem 24-7 so that would also make me a 24-7 furrsuiter
my connection is mostly spiritual but I am a full on furr.
Cat
 flicks and swishes my tail

So, for the record, this seems to say he considers himself a member of the furry community. I'm not hugely wedded to the picture being there - I agree that if there is only room for one picture, a more general-purpose one would be more appropriate (though I will add a link to the article about him as an example in the line about body modification). Do you happen to know where we might find such a picture? GreenReaper 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what you need to consider here is this. Is this guy the only one you’ve ever heard of having extreme body modification? If so, it could in no way be called common behavior in any respect. Thus the use of the word “Some” is completely inappropriate. It should rather read something like, “One member of the community is known to have had extensive body modification.” But then, if it’s just one guy doing it, doesn’t the whole subject fall under Misplaced Pages trivia too small of note to be mentioned? I think for body modification to even rate a mention in the lifestyler section, you should be able to point to at least 3 people who have done it. Otherwise I think your just slapping the stigma of one guy’s extremes on a whole group of people.

As for what a picture of a typical lifestyler would be. It would be a picture of an ordinary guy. Unlike with the fandom, lifestyling doesn’t effect visual appearances that much. Lifestyling is more an inner or spiritual thing. Maybe if you could get a picture of an ordinary guy with the ghost of a tiger superimposed you’d have an accurate visual representation. Perri Rhoades 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a stigma? I was under the impression that while some thought it was "bad press" for him to be on TV, some others would do the same if only they had the courage (and the money). Certainly I've seen enough people with the "if technology was available to transform myself into my chosen animal, I'd do it in a heartbeat" tag on their furcode, and noted eager attendance at related convention programming. Right now doctors are prohibited from performing procedures that make people look less human, which severely limits the number of people who can actually go through with their desires.

As it happens, I did take a photo of the reverse of that at the MIT Museum just a few weeks ago. Wish I'd got a better one, but it was a devilishly hard thing to photograph at all. I'm not sure that's quite what you had in mind, though. :-)

An interesting question arises - how big is the furry lifestyling community in general? What proportion of fans are just fans, and what proportion incorporate it into their lifestyle? GreenReaper 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could simply remove the "extensive" from "extensive body modification". There are enough people that consider themselves "lifestyler" that have smaller body motifications like piercings, tattoos of their favourite animals or quite sharp fingernails.

As for the question about the size of the furry lifestyler community, I don't think that can be found out. As with furry itself, there's no clear definition, it overlaps with Therianthropy, Otherkin and other subcultures, and there are no studies on this subject, of course. So I don't think we should say very much about the size of it, other that it is "small", compared to the rest of the fandom. --Conti|✉ 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They both sound good to me. GreenReaper 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, extensive and permanent body modifications are not a fandom issue at all. When you get to that point, you have journeyed far a field from anything that can be covered by a fandom, or even by a religion. The only realm I can see this falling into is individual eccentricity. And, yes, if you even suggest that a number of furry fans and/or lifestylers might be that eccentric, it does become a stigma.

The most honest thing you could say would be that a number have said they might like to try it. But don’t make it sound like dozens or hundreds of people are falling over themselves to have visible and irreparable modifications. Not unless you’ve got some evidence stronger than a number of people in the community expressing fanciful thoughts.

Sure, many people might put in their furry code that they would do it if it became scientifically possible. But you have to remember, furry fandom is a fantasy fandom, and turning into an animal is a nice fantasy. But actually face somebody with the knife and the prospect of being a social oddity for life, and it’s no longer a fun fantasy. Thus, you can’t base anything on what a bunch of fantasy fans say they would do. Chances are the whole thing is no more real to them than the comics they follow or the stories they read. You can’t say what they would do when faced with the prospect in reality. Perri Rhoades 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan creations section has no refrences

There are only 3 refrences in those paragraphs, one of which links to Wikifur, which is not a proper citation since it is a wiki. I am deleting most of that section until more citations pop up. 69.160.28.78 19:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would've actually read the WikiFur article, you would've found out that the article is about the book, and is not the source itself. Therefore, I have reverted your edit. Also, not every single sentence on this wiki needs a source, especially not if things are obvious as "One of the oldest and largest MUCKs in existence is FurryMUCK. One of the newest virtual environments to attract furry fans is Second Life." are, or are you disputing that these sentences are true?

Strictly speaking, every single fact should have a reference. Common knowledge is a dangerous thing to rely on - some believe that if the average man on the street (on any street) does not know it, it is not common. For (almost) an example of how to reference to that standard, see Samuel Conway.

As for quality of references, wikis are often not considered to be a verifiable source, because they are changeable by everyone and many have no review or fact-checking process whatsoever. Personally I would just use inline links if there is a topic that is very definitely furry and not sufficiently notable, rather than list it as an official "reference", unless there really was no other good source and I was pretty darn sure that the information was accurate (from my own checking) and would remain in the article.

That said, I have the book, and that is what it claims. As such, I would suggest that the reference be changed to the book itself. If you want to confirm it, read the book. GreenReaper 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And, are you User:Inkbottle ? If not, why have you signed with his username? --Conti|✉ 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was too lazy to sign in. And thanks for clearing all that up. 69.160.28.78 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Odd Facts" section

I just nipped this out, as it was unsourced and speculative. Opinions? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck put that there? --π! 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Er, well, a quick look at the history reveals User:Dalhusky. This was only his second Misplaced Pages edit, the other of which was also questionable and reverted.) --π! 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

But furry IS largely a sexual fetish. Still though, that section is nonsense and thus gets the boot. 69.160.28.78 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

No. And this conversation never happened. 69.160.28.78 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Charitable works

Many furry groups and conventions raise money for good causes, or otherwise sponsor charitable activities.

A subsection on this wouldn't be inappropriate. FT2 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request that this article be locked

I would like to apologise for the people who try to keep this article either incredibly pro-furry or incredibly anti-furry. I've been in the furry fandom for quite some time now( about 4 years), and i've come to realise that alot of furries are very sensitive about how the furry fandom is depicted on the mainstream media, and the internet in general. Before i continue i would like to state that i am neither pro, nor anti furry, and that the following is derived from my personal experiences in the furry fandom.

To understand the problems of this article, you have to understand that a significant part of the furry fandom has one or more sexual fetishes, including almost every known fetish imaginable (and some that you probably cannot imagine). You can devide the furry fandom in several camps, like moderate furries, furry-lifestilers or the more extreme furries. The camp i'm talking about is the more extreme ones. They are responsible for the more unussual stuff that can be found in the furry fandom. They write about it, and draw art depicting it. Because these furries have such an unussual taste, they are an easy targets for internet Trolls( who actively search for unussual stuff to make fun of). These trolls then spread this stuff around to other people, eventually creating a group of people who sees nothing but negative things about furries. This is the cause of the anti-fur people. Because trolls spread this stuff aroundso much, the other furries( those not so extreme) also get pestered by it. The problem is that a number of furries get so frustrated of these trolls that they do the opposite of the trolls. They feel that the image of the furry fandom has been severely hurt by the trolls, so they try to balance it by trying to create a pro-furry image, where everything is okay, and there is nothing weird about the furry fandom( while, offcourse, there are a number of aspects that can easily be classified as weird). These people make up the pro-furries, and are probably responsible for the one-sidedness of this article.

I have two suggestions that could solve this article's problems. Firstly i suggest that this article is locked, and that a limited number of people are given access to it, so they can try to make a good( as in; up to wikipedia's standards) article about furries. My second idea is that instead of locking the article, there be created two furry articles, one pro-furry, and one anti-furry, and that these two be merged into one later on. 01:49, 21 October 2006 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.170.62 (talk • contribs) .

Both suggestions cannot be fulfilled, because they both go against the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. Articles can be protected from editing, but only for short periods of time to deal with vandalism or edit wars. It is not possible to limit editing privileges to a few chosen people. We also do not create "pro" and "con"-sided articles, as all of our articles have to be neutral. If the "criticism"-section of an article gets too big, it can become its own article, but that doesn't mean that it is allowed to hold a certain POV. --Conti|✉ 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What you see here today is the result of that pro/anti process on a smaller scale. Instead of writing whole articles, people tend to add sections. Often, these sections are biased in one way or another. Editors work to reduce the bias either way.

If you can point out specific cases where you think this is not happening, I would encourage you to do so. The main issue that I see is that members of the fandom are able and willing to provide good references for their edits, while the anti-fandom seem unable or unwiling to do so. My suspicion is that this is because "well-known" claims of fandom activities are in fact not all that accurate.

It's OK to be weird. I think most people reading the article would consider the fandom a little weird. But what we have had to deal with are claims that equate to "a significant proportion of furries have sex in fursuit" and the like, which are then not referenced. There is a problem there, because it reinforces a stereotype that they can't prove . . . because it isn't actually true. GreenReaper 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to GreenReaper: it is possible to semi-protect articles that suffer from serious vandalism, so that only logged in users who have held a WP account for four days can edit. However, unless the article is constantly vandalised in this way (eg Jew), that semi-protection is a temporary measure, to be removed when the spate of attacks has finished. Loganberry (Talk) 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The bots actually do a pretty good job of protecting the page nowadays. Either that or too many people have it on their watchlist. ;-) GreenReaper 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the post at the top of this section.

As one of the people who has been accused of deliberately trying to put too positive a spin on things, I would like to make something clear. I came here to help write an article on the furry fandom, not the entire friggin’ furry community, which at the time was well covered in a number of other articles that have since been merged with this page under protest.

I submit that the actual furry fandom has absolutely nothing to do with fetishes, lifestyles, or anything else that could be regarded as anymore freaky than any other fandom for any other form of art. The reason what I wrote seemed overly positive was because I was writing about the actual furry fandom that nobody else here seems to understand.

When you write about a fandom, you generally attempt to explain the art form, venues in which fans of that art form meet, crafts that fans employ in the celebration of that art form, and other things of that nature. At the point where you start writing anything that passes some kind of positive or negative judgment on the majority of the fandom, you are no longer being encyclopedic, academic or clinically detached. You are indulging in opinions or repeating hearsay that can not be legitimately substantiated.

I didn't do that. I never said this is good or bad. I just said this is the genre that is the center pin of the fandom. That center pin encompasses a lot of historically attractive things. So the trolls looked in and said, "Hey, he's making furry fandom look attractive. That can't be right." Well, dang it, it's not my fault not even the majority of people in the community take the time to examine the genre and see what an attractive thing it is on its own without any spin at all.

And it was not my place to balance that attractiveness by including hearsay, accusations or by making a big deal out of things like people in the furry fandom have fetishes or the online furry community has trolls. People in every fandom have fetishes and every online community has trolls. These were not facts peculiar to furry fandom, and I was not required to include them just because I didn’t want furry fandom looking too good for the benefit of those who have something against it.

Now, I know well that Misplaced Pages allows you to print unsubstantiated hearsay if you can find some other source to quote it from. But Misplaced Pages places no onus on you to verify that your source is in fact accurate. Actually, it forbids you from doing so. And unfortunately, so little has been written on the actual furry fandom that there is nothing out there for you to reference that is not at the very least misleading, if not just outright wrong.

Furry fandom is a name that has been mistakenly used for years by people who either don’t know or care about what it means. That does not alter the responsibility of an encyclopedia to dig beneath the misuse of the term, get to the accurate definition, and put the stuff that is not actually relative to it in another article.

The article all these controversial lifestyles, fetishes, and otherwise shocking items belong in would be titled The Furry Community. The Furry Community all but dismissed furry fandom ages ago. But they keep using the name for no logical reason, in total indifference to the fact that the real furry fandom still exists and deserves its separate identity, along with its separate reputation, its separate definition, and it’s separate Misplaced Pages article.

The reason I got so upset when I was attacked for “putting a positive spin on things” was because I had been working very hard to be clinical and encyclopedic. And at the point where that attack started, the article was about as close to encyclopedic neutrality as it has ever been. And it was, in fact, an article about the actual fandom. Something that is very hard to find on the net. Plus, it was generating a lot of buzz from people who were happy to finally see an accurate representation of their fandom in such a prominent place.

It was a great disappointment to me to realize that it wasn't going to stay that way. But that is the ultimate failure of Misplaced Pages’s concept. No matter how hard you work to get the page accurate and neutral, there will always be some troll coming in, insisting that the article is prejudicial because it deals only with the fandom instead of dealing with the entire community. And instead of defending the accuracy of what is already there, you guys will compromise the page to appease the trolls, confusion will reign, and in the end you’ll be right back where you started from.

I have personally sworn off this never ending exercise in futility due to lack of free time, but I resent the good effort I put into this page being demeaned as trying to put a positive spin on things. There has never been anybody here trying to put a deceptively positive spin on things. There have only been those trying to get some sense of truth in the article, some people trying to keep it encyclopedic, and some people trying to write prejudices, misconceptions and bad jokes into it. And I can’t honestly say some of the furries here haven’t been just as guilty of the latter as the trolls. Perri Rhoades 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

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)

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)

Questions regarding Furry

1. If a cartoon or comic has anthromorphic characters in it (e.g. Looney Toons or Dilbert), does that make it furry?
2. If one likes that cartoon or comic, does that make one furry?
3. If one goes on a corporate retreat where they identify themselves with an animal or animal spirit, does that make one furry?

Anomo 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A cartoon that has a single furry character in it is not a furry cartoon on the whole. But the character is a furry character. And anything with a furry character in it may be of interest to furry fans. The more furry characters a cartoon has, the more furry it may be considered on the whole. Peanuts would properly be classed as a regular cartoon with a couple of furry characters in it. The Get-Along Gang is a completely furry cartoon because all the characters are animals.

If one likes general cartoons and has no specific orientation on the furry ones, but rather likes all cartoons equally, that is a general cartoon fan. But if the cartoon fan is especially interested in the furry cartoons and regards them as something separate, that is a furry fan.

In the case of spiritualism, whether one is a furry or not pretty much depends on if they choose to call themselves one. Many people with spiritual beliefs involving animals choose not to call themselves furries and have a number of other names they may call themselves, such as Therian or Otherkin. Often whether a spiritualist chooses to call himself a furry depends on how much interest he also has in the furry art forms. Those that are not interested in the artistic side of things tend to regard it more like a religion or philosophy than a fandom, and don't like to cheapen it by confusing it with the cartoon fandom. Perri Rhoades 04:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are some comic/cartoons/etc. things considered officially furry (as in List of furry comics) but others are not like Br'er rabbit, Aesop's fables, and things called Kemono (like Sonic the Hedgehog)? Anomo 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, because they were created specifically for the furry fandom (in this case, usually by a member of it). Other times, because a significant proportion of the market for them is compsed of the furry fandom, or a significant proportion of the furry fandom is interested in them. It is a subjective judgement, and one which is not always appreciated by the creators, who tend to feel they should be the ones with the right to say what genre the comic is in. GreenReaper 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also not appreciated by the fans who rarely, if ever, look at a list before deciding whether to call something furry or not, and wouldn't know what else to call it if you told them not to call it furry. In short, it's elitism impressed on others from certain factions of the fandom, and on the for real side of things, has no meaning.

There are cartoons and there are furry cartoons, but the general cartoon market makes no distinction. It’s just another pointless point of view for fans to fight with each other over, that in the end makes no difference at all. Perri Rhoades 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, what's with all the useless labels? If you're a furry, you're a furry. If you're not, you're not. Unless furries have reached into the "people are born furries, so it's not a question of self-identity, it's a question of nature" kettle, then spending time defining who isn't and who is a furry (here or in article space) seems pretty pointless, since it's a question of a persons self-identity. As for comics etc., no way, that makes pretty much any animated movie ever furry just because it has a humanesque animal in it. And Dilbert?! What?!?! It seems to me like something is a "furry comic/cartoon/whatever" if it's meant to be, not if it has a sentient animal in it. It's not logical to let a fandom or any other group have the cultural leeway to slap their labels on anything they please (not that I'm saying that's what furries do, I have no idea one way or the other), so even if a furry says "X is a FURRY thing", that doesn't make it so. I for one don't want furries or anyone else deciding my identity by picking and choosing what cultural elements "belong" to them. As far as List of furry comics or whatever goes, if that's all "furry-defined" labels of popular, not-necessarily-made-for-furries-like-Sonic-the-Hedgehog-or-whatever comics maybe it should be PURGED. Miltopia 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists