Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 21 May 2022

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Furry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 19, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 3, 2016 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Furry Top‑importance Furry fandom is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.FurryWikipedia:WikiProject FurryTemplate:WikiProject Furryfurry Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:WP1.0

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Chus Martinez on Plushophilia, 2014

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 July 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 – September 2009 October 2009 – May 2011 June 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Revert to article version as of August last year.

As discussed in earlier an threads here, and at a subsequent thread at WP:ANI, this article has undergone very significant editing by a single individual over the last six months or so, leading to a marked deterioration in the quality of the article - compare its state yesterday with the August 2021 version. Since, in the ANI thread, the individual concerned has now acknowledged that the editing was non-constructive ("Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that. It honestly looks horrible in my opinion."), and since nobody seems to have raised any objections to me doing so, I have now reverted the article to the earlier state.

Clearly this will also result in the reversion of more constructive edits, from amongst the relatively few made during the period by other contributors, but we will at least now have a properly-structured, grammatical and encyclopaedic starting point to work from. Apologies to anyone who got their work reverted, but this seems the best method of restoring an article that is at least now readable. Over the next few days I will be looking back through the article history, and attempting to restore anything lost which is still relevant and compliant with policy.

I should note that amongst the issues raised with recent edits, beyond mere poor writing, were both questionable sourcing and the cherry-picking of legitimate sources for questionable content, and accordingly I'd ask that anyone looks carefully at any sources cited before restoring anything added recently and subsequently reverted. Even as it stood in August, there were probably a few minor problems that needed dealing with, but hopefully we can arrive at an article that does justice to its subject matter, and which at least aspires to be worthy of an encyclopaedia. Our readers deserve it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking on zoophilia

Okay, so contributor User:AndyTheGrump reverted the article back to its older state for obvious reasons and I don't object to this version however this version still has problems nonetheless.

This version of the article has issues with regards to zoophilia. This version says A small proportion of the fandom is sexually interested in zoophilia (sex with animals), although a majority take a negative stance towards it. An anonymous survey in 2008 found 17% of respondents reported zoophilia.

However, the source cited for that statement says 17.1% of furries identify as zoophiles.

Also, the statement claims that a majority of the participants had a negative view towards zoophilia however the survey says this. Regardless of participation, most furries took at best a moderated view towards zoophilia.

This is clearly a case of cherry-picking. In that 2008 study only around 45% of the participants had a negative view of zoophilia, that’s not a majority.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, almost all the article content regarding surveys is problematic. Any proper discussion of such content should begin by noting exactly who conducted the survey (i.e. in the case of the 2008 survey, the Furry Research Center, which though it aspires to academic credibility, probably deserved, might will be seen as non-neutral), and who the survey subjects were. No survey in this article should be cited for unqualified statements about what 'furries' in general think or believe. As for the specifics regarding zoophilia, it is a very tricky subject to get meaningful data on, for fairly obvious reasons, and Misplaced Pages certainly shouldn't be engaging in original research, as the section in question appears to be doing where it compares surveys concerning 'furries' with the results of surveys done on other groups. I'd be interested to see what other people have to say on this though, and before we do anything more we might do well to ask at WP:RS/N whether, and how, 'Furry Research Center' survey results should be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Since no one did anything or commented I decided to just edit the thing myself. CycoMa1 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now edited the article to remove the WP:OR etc, though I'm still not entirely happy with using the Furry Research Center data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

More recent research on zoophilia.

The "Sexual aspects" section cites a poll from 2008 which found 17% of respondents to identify as zoophiles. However, I noticed another source from 2019 that found only 6.9% of respondents were interested in zoophilia. I think that further recent sources for this section should be pursued: From my experience, the fandom has an overwhelmingly negative view on zoophilia as a whole, and it is evident to me that the 2008 study is no longer an accurate representation of the fandom. (Forgive me if I'm using this section wrong, I'm still learning how to use Misplaced Pages.) — GreyAwoo (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As I noted above, using furry-specific research organisations might be seen as problematic, but as long as we make it clear where the data is coming from, and its possible limitations, it is probably better than nothing, and we should obviously use later data if we can. I'll revise the article when I've had a chance to look at the source in more detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andy. As you review, please do note the credentials of the researchers involved in the FurScience project - many of them appear to be published in a variety of journals, etc. While some of them are furries, they certainly are not furry-specific in their scope of research as a whole. The project's been running for some time, it's quite comprehensive, and the research team has certainly been quite professional and focused, from everything I've seen. In addition, there is a fair bit of media coverage in which the project is covered and the experts in question used as sources. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the research being cited by the media is a point in their favour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to update the photo under Sociological Aspects to this one:

Gravellyplain (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Sorry!--TZubiri (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" as an insult.

In my own the offensive version of the terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" is considered very homophobic and right-wing, and used it on politics, because of this, they probably resembled them as liberals and leftists, and this needs to stop! And I wish someone would create a term called "Right-wing fanboy(s)", to resemble right-wing extremists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here - a language barrier, perhaps. Are you saying that there are some who use these terms as insults and that those who do this tend to be homophobic and/or far right? In general, furries tend to be more LGBTQ-friendly and on average are more left-leaning than the general population, at least in the USA (I think IFRP has covered this, though I don't have their research in front of me). If "furry" and "fursona" are being used in such a manner, we would want to find reliable sources covering such usage before including it in Misplaced Pages. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is. And people with far-right views are using it as a slur! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs)

As you have already been told on your talk page, Misplaced Pages article talk pages are not a forum. Either make an actual proposal for editing, directly backed up by published reliable sources, or find somewhere other than Misplaced Pages to complain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeHaru03 (talk • contribs)

What. I'm a furry myself and I have never heard of anyone saying that the terms "Furry" and "Fursonas" are homophobic or right-wing. In fact, we find "furry" and "fursona" the proper terms. While technically there is also "anthro" that's mainly referring to making animals look human-like. ― Blaze Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class furry articles
• Top-importance furry articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists