Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 4 June 2005

Furry redirect

To anyone wondering about the lack of a Furry article: the original article has been redirected to furry fandom as per agreement on the discussion page in the original furry article. If you wish to add/subtract/edit any information, please do so on the furry fandom page rather than trying to resurrect the Furry page. Thanks! -- Grumpyhan 04:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zootropic Paranoia

What is "Zootropic Paranoia" ? Google produces only this article for that term! If it is a term coined within this community, could it be briefly explained please? -- Tarquin

My Oct 6, 2003 change was not minor, sorry

Sorry, I forgot to untick the "minor edit" box. So I'm a noob. I've changed my preferences so it doesn't default to ticked. PeterCat 00:32, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Extensive edit/reorganization

This edit was an extensive reorganization of the article, bringing together related ideas and excising redundant material (and some weasel and non-NPOV language). "See Also" links were incorporated into the text as free links. PeterCat 03:59, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I would think weasel words would be encouraged on this particular topic --Calieber 18:49, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Is the quote "G*d Damned" accurate or has that censoring been done by the editor who put it in? If so, why is God censored rather than Damned? I'd suggest leaving it as "God Damned" unless the original was also censored. --Darac 14:55, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "The furry fandom is often depicted as being chiefly female. Given that most furry works, though adult level, tend to be lighter and more sentimental, many see reason to believe that the furry fandom evolved as a reaction to the male dominated testoterone fantasies prevalent the comics/SF/cartoon fandom.". I take part in the furry fandom and don't see significant more "female behaviour" than in any other community. --Conti 21:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Skiffy relationship?

I think the relationship of our fandom to scifi is tenuous at best. I've seen more fantasy elements in the fandom than scifi. Granted, aliens would kind of technically be furs (alien animals that are anthros.. kind of) in the same way that humans are kind of ape anthros.. But thats not where the fandom comes from and science fiction is a rather small subset. I'm recommending we remove the part that says we're a subset of the scifi fandom. - Augur 14 august 2004

Hmm, the reason why it is categorized as a sub-genre of scifi could be that the furry fandom started at sci-fi-conventions (correct me if I'm wrong). So it originated from the sci-fi genre, but you are of course correct that it is no sub-genre of sci-fi. Actually furry can be any kind of genre imaginable, but fantasy would be the most fitting one I think.

Oh, and please do not make such edits. If you disagree with something on an article just ask on the talk page or Be Bold and change the article the way you think is right. A "(Maybe??)" in an article does not look very professional. Thanks for mentioning this anyways! --Conti|✉ 09:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, furry originated from sci-fi. But, it no longer being there, has evolved more into a kind of medium than a genre. —Muke Tever 01:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Need for reorganization

This article is very unorganized. I realize it may be being neglected in favor of perfecting the Furry article, but when the two articles are merged (as seems to be the current consensus of what should be done) I hope the organization is a bit improved. -- Krishva 05:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Added A Second History Theory

I added a second theory to the history of the Fandom. I'm positive that it could have been linked further back to the mythology as not only in history would you see characteristics of that of a character of the Furry Fandom, but there is also recent art (as in the last 5-10 years) that also depicts Anubis which is AKA "Dark Desire" The matter could be looked into deeper, but I do not have the historical expertise to actually define it further, so it should be looked at in a historical perspective. Hope that helps ;)

I don't think that mythological creatures and deities really serve as a precedent to the furry fandom. That's some sort of fallacy, anyway. What furry fandom really has its start in is cartoons and comics and sci-fi. The stuff with Anubis et al might work better in the anthropomorphism article. That's why it's there. --Prangton 04:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually wait, let me elaborate a bit, I didn't mean to just shoot you down there and pull things out of my ass without explanation. The furry fandom is something very specific, which is why it's got its own article seperate from anthropomorphism, which covers the theory of giving something human characteristics, and funny animal slash talking animal which are two genres that have inspired the furry fandom but still exist independently from it. Now, at the time this mythology was formed, there wasn't a fandom to speak of, really. though I don't know, I'm not a historian. There were deities with animal heads and human/animal crossbreeds in mythology, but those are more a case of anthropomorphism than anything to do with the fandom created in the mid 80s. In other words, what I said above! --Prangton 04:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no "fandom" for animal-headed people in Greek/Egyptian/whatever times. Instances of anthropomorphism (beyond talking but otherwise nonhumanoid animals) were extremely uncommon. The only ones I can think of offhand are certain Egyptian dieties, the Minotaur, and a certain Sumerian harp that has a few satirical images of an "animal party" on it. In something like 3500 years of recorded history before the common era, that is not a lot. Certainly there was not a fandom for this kind of material at those times--or any time before the 20th century. The idea of fandom was incomprehensible to people who, for the most part, had to spend most of their time trying to get enough to eat. Furries can be said to have drawn inspiration from historical uses of anthropomorphism, but these are definitely not proof of the existance of an ancient furry fandom. -- Krishva 05:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. As it seems to be the case, I had a little bit of a hard time being able to read and understand the article (as the complaint of organization has already been made) but it could also be my incredibleness of being a bit of a n00b here as well. I didn't actually catch the link on anthropomorphism which does mention what I had suggested, so sorry for that. What did come as a surprise was no mention of Winnie the Pooh and Bucky O'Hare. Those are probably the oldest examples I can think of that I didn't catch in the article. I didn't edit that in there seeing as how fast a counter argument can crop up, so I just put the suggestion here for now to see what kind of comments are posted

Also, being a creative myself, I know that artists will always seek a form of inspiration which is why I figured that, at the very least, inspiration would trickle down from Greek, Roman and Egyptian based religions. I figured that the actual fandom online can be traced back to the 80's, but it left the possibility that some forms of it could have been floating around before the internet. The reason for the 80's date, I assumed, was because it could be traced back then online because it would have been digitally written down (so it would have been detectable through extensive online research) That was where I was coming from on my point, just to clarify that, though I missed the article that dealt with the idea, I'm not just going, "Hey, there's pictograms of those things too!"

So, just suggesting is all. :)

Trikster85

P.S. I just caught the paragraph that goes over historical citings. Sorry, I seem to be slow at getting the information to sink in. -.-

---

Could a registered user remove the fursuit link (which is different than fur culture), and replace it with something like http://www.twin.ne.jp/~akr_m/en/cg03 which is CC licensed? That should be fair for Misplaced Pages.

NPOV?

Look, by editing the picture back to a bunch of people in fursuits, and changing the wording of the page, you're not portraying a neutral expression. It is particularly worse when furry is redirecting here. While it's true that that IS a picture of people who most likely are into fur-fandom, It's not a particularly flattering one. A fursuit is not appropriate there, what about a picture, such as http://www.twin.ne.jp/~akr_m/img/akr173.jpg

It's creative Commons licensed, and a hella lot more neutral.

I'll admit, the Robin Hood image was more mainstream that perhaps they should be presented, but I think you're going to far.

Uh, that picture was there before, and whoever took that photo AGREED to have the photo placed in the Furry fandom article. If it's not flatterring, that's your own opinion. The reason the picture was chosen is because there needs to be at least some pictures showing fans of the furry fandom. (I suggest if you want to comment on how well the suits are designed, you might want to speak the person who wore it instead of complaining here) -- Grumpyhan 07:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image is still in the article; just pushed down. I think this is a fine compromise. -- Stiv 07:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason the fursuit image was re-added was because that picture is actually posted with the photographer's permission. I thought pictures of fans would certainly be appropriate, and these people are not doing anything crude or otherwise unflattering in the image--they're just posing in their costumes. What you linked to anyway was an anime "catgirl," which is arguably not really "furry" to begin with. If you can find an image of people engaging in furry fandom activities (public domain photography, please) that you feel is more flattering than the fursuit picture, by all means utilize it. I don't think any more images of anthropomorphic animals in media are necessary, though--copyrights on that kind of stuff are hazy and could easily be violations.

I changed the wording of the article because the existing wording showed a poor understanding of the English language and flowed extremely poorly. The article read very badly, with a large number of redundancies, and I fixed it. I tried to retain a neutral tone, but if you feel anything is phrased in a non-neutral way, please feel free to change it. -- Krishva 07:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)