View source for Talk:Furry fandom

{{Talkheader}}
{{notice|See also: [[Talk:Yiff/Archive 1|Talk:Yiff Archive]]}}
{{not a forum}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=14:44, 11 August 2007
|action1link=Talk:Furry_fandom/Archive_7#GA_fail
|action1result=failed

|action2=GAN
|action2date=19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Furry fandom/GA1
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=239129678

|currentstatus=FGAN
|action3=PR
|action3date=15:13:59 03 September 2016 (UTC)
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Furry fandom/archive1
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=934942869
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Furry|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{to do}}
{{Backwardscopy|title=Chus Martinez on Plushophilia|url=https://chusmartinez1.wordpress.com/tag/fursuits/|year=2014}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Furry fandom/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=17
| maxarchivesize=200K
| archiveheader={{tan}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

== need improvement ==

paragraph 65 should have a link to the survey and/or be updated with a more recent survey to increase credibility. [[User:MCFY83|MCFY83]] ([[User talk:MCFY83|talk]]) 12:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

:The cite is to the research paper which conducted the survey. We don't need to show the original data here. And if you can find a newer survey that fits [[WP:RS]], please feel free to point us in that direction. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 13:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::i have no idea where the site is help [[User:MCFY83|MCFY83]] ([[User talk:MCFY83|talk]]) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

== ID of the "pair of cartoonists" who created Vootie ==

Reed Waller and Ken Fletcher were the pair of cartoonists, who started it up in Minneapolis. A scan of a flyer they made to discuss it can be found here (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/19451045/), but a Google search of their names might be able to provide a better source to to reference. There's loads of pages though, so it would be great if someone who's allowed to edit this can find a more appropriate one. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7080:9D40:66C1:845B:1DB7:474A:446|2603:7080:9D40:66C1:845B:1DB7:474A:446]] ([[User talk:2603:7080:9D40:66C1:845B:1DB7:474A:446|talk]]) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

:It's a bit late where I am but it's a start to have the artists named; I added the link to the page as a primary source to confirm it. Any input by other editors is appreciated here! [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#6BAD2D">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#2F3833">rabbit</span>]] 03:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

== Add an article detailing the anthropomorphic research project(Furscience) ==

I would like to suggest adding a page about the anthropomorphic research project, known as furscience to the majority. It should include:
* Origins of the project + History
* Types of data, maybe examples
* Effect it has had on the furry fandom as a whole
* How they collect their data
* Known members
[[Special:Contributions/86.22.133.69|86.22.133.69]] ([[User talk:86.22.133.69|talk]]) 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:Do you have [[WP:RS|reliable, ''independent'' sources]] demonstrating this project is notable? — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

== Recent edits by Waka Waka ==

I reverted some of the latest edits because they simply aren't supported by the source. The source does not talk about the fandom having "generally been received poorly in media". That, or I have simply missed the specific sentences in the paper that talk about it. The source also does not say that "sexual aspects and zoophilia being a main source of controversy" of the media coverage. The source does not use the word "controversy" or any variant of it at all. The paper simply talks about there being media coverage, and the fandom having sexual aspects (including zoophilia). It does not connect these two topics or make any of the claims that were added to the article.

After my revert Waka Waka added a second source, which, as far as I can tell, also does not talk about any sort of controversy and seems to be a weak source to begin with, being part of a bachelor's thesis from a Department of Art, Design, and Art History from the perspective of a furry, instead of being a scientific paper or study dealing with the subject.

In addition, Waka Waka has now added the originally used source twice. One where the pages "1-21" are cited, which just so happens to be the entire document, and another one where the pages "1349–1369" are cited, which also happens to be the entire document, just with a different page numbering. That seems like an odd attempt to make it look like the statement is supported by multiple sources when it's, well, not. I'm having a hard time finding a good faith argument for doing this.

I suggest to remove the recent addition. The sources just don't support it. Especially given the countless articles out there these days that are quite positive about the fandom ([https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jul/28/why-are-people-always-pointing-the-finger-at-furries-inside-the-wild-world-of-the-furry-fandom], [https://www.michigandaily.com/statement/i-immersed-myself-in-furry-culture-you-dont-understand-them/], [https://www.wesa.fm/identity-community/2024-07-08/anthrocon-2024-17-000-furry-fandom-enthusiasts-celebrate-creativity-community-downtown-pittsburgh], [https://www.sltrib.com/news/2024/05/24/utah-has-an-adult-furry-fandom/], [https://screenrant.com/x-men-nightcrawler-furry-fan-community/], just to take a few random examples from a 2 minute google search. All of these could reasonably be used in the article). --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:1) I didn't know I repeated the source twice so saying it was an "attempt to make it look like the statement is supported by multiple sources when it's, well, not" is presuming bad faith since it was a normal mistake, what it doesn't look like a mistake is why your first edit in more than 2 years is just to revert my edition with sources. [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content]]
:2) You can change the content and how is structured but you CAN'T remove zoophilia allegations considering its mentioned in the source -you like it or not- and is illegal -abuse of animals- in most places, that's why is controversial, more or less the same logic applied to the similar genre known as [[lolicon]]. Not mentioning zoophilia allegations makes the article not neutral. You can't dictate what the article may or may not say if the sources mention something you maybe don't like or controversial. 
:3) You claim my edits "aren't supported by the source" when the source mention zoophilia and you agree it too. So, basically you are deleting sourced information so what's the problem? If you have issues with the wording I said about the fandom being "poorly received" only you can change that part. [[User:Waka Waka|Waka Waka]] ([[User talk:Waka Waka|talk]]) 22:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding #2 & 3, you cannot take information in the source and interpret it with your own conclusion. That is considered [[WP:OR]]. So if the source has not called it a "controversy" you cannot phrase it that way.
:In addition, as Conti says, someone's thesis is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] we can use here to support this. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And what word you want to use to mention zoophilia allegations without calling it a controversy? I mean, we should interpret the source somehow. [[User:Waka Waka|Waka Waka]] ([[User talk:Waka Waka|talk]]) 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You should avoid loaded terms when they're not used by a source. And no, we do not "interpret" sources. Also, something is wrong with your signature, that causes it to jump onto a new line, which is messing with reply indentation. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::By that logic, we are doing plagiarism if we said the exact words as the source, I tried to be the less invasive I can while applying common sense to refer to an illegal sexual practice so tell me again which you didn't answer, how do you suggest replacing that sentence? [[User:Waka Waka|Waka Waka]] ([[User talk:Waka Waka|talk]]) 23:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, we rephrase to avoid plagiarism, but we do not insert concepts ''not in the source''.
::::::I do not currently have time to devote to devising a new phrasing, that'll have to wait. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 23:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For convenience, here are the proposed sources:
::::*{{Cite web|last=Guerrier|first=Jacqueline Daniell|date=2014|title=Bringing out the animal in me: An examination of art and the individual within the Furry subculture|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/153207931.pdf|url-status=live|website=Honors College at [[James Madison University|JMU]] Scholarly Commons}}
::::*{{Cite journal|last=Hsu|first=Kevin|last2=Bailey|first2=J.|date=2019-07-01|title=The “Furry” Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331375793_The_Furry_Phenomenon_Characterizing_Sexual_Orientation_Sexual_Motivation_and_Erotic_Target_Identity_Inversions_in_Male_Furries|journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior|volume=48|pages=1–21|doi=10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7}}
::::The first one doesn't appear reliable.
::::The second one pretty quickly gets deep in the weeds of sexology as it discusses the relationship between furries and [[erotic target location error]]. It does discuss this more broadly though, such as with this quote: 
::::{{tq|Some articles have even asserted that furries do not have any sexual motivation, unusual sexual interests, or unusual sexual practices. The recent tendency for both furries and the media to minimize or completely deny sexual motivation may represent a response to social stigma. This stigma is partly due to the early media portrayals of furries that emphasized unusual sexual interests and practices (e.g., Gurley, 2001; Zuiker et al., 2003), which are stigmatized in and of themselves (e.g., BDSM; Wright, 2006). Non-furries do tend to perceive furries negatively (Roberts, Plante, Reysen, & Gerbasi, 2016), and furries tend to perceive that they are stigmatized (Kington, 2015; Plante et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2015). Furthermore, many furries worry about the negative consequences of revealing their identity as a furry (Mock, Plante, Reysen, & Gerbasi, 2013; Roberts et al., 2015). Thus, furries may wish to downplay any sexual motivation that might exist in order to reduce social stigma. For similar reasons, they may also be cautious about, if not hostile toward, media and research that address the possibility of sexual motivation.}}[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331375793_The_Furry_Phenomenon_Characterizing_Sexual_Orientation_Sexual_Motivation_and_Erotic_Target_Identity_Inversions_in_Male_Furries]
::::The lead should do a better job of summarizing the body, but adding this to the lead would be a step backwards. Calling this a 'controversy' is absolutely not going to cut it. Start with context from a reliable source. Don't work [[WP:BACKWARDS]]. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 23:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

==Blanchard's typology applied to furries==
{{ping|Tubelubie|JalenBarks|jmcgnh|ArkHyena}} Thanks for starting the conversation in the edit history and at [[User_talk:JalenBarks#Regarding_revert_at_"Furry_fandom"]].

This is the edit discussed, [[special:diff/1285280472/1285284584]]
----------
A study in 2019 found that 99% of furries report some degree of sexual motivation for being furries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hsu |first=Kevin J. |last2=Bailey |first2=J. Michael |date=2019 |title=The "Furry" Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30806867 |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=48 |issue=5 |pages=1349–1369 |doi=10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7 |issn=1573-2800 |pmid=30806867}}</ref>
{{talk reflist}}
----------

I am bringing this here to log this discussion on the talk page of the article, because I expect it will recur.
From JalenBark's talk page, 
-------------
: Single studies are often flawed, so if you think there's actually something wrong with that one, you could add that to your discussion. Otherwise, if you don't have a strong reason, you could just say you might have been wrong and let the edit stand. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">—&nbsp;jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#1e5213">(talk)</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#73b516">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 01:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:The main issue is that stating "99% of those surveyed joined for sexual reasons to some degree" is far too vague. There's some nuance in the study this statement missed, such as the study also surveying the weight sexual interest held amongst those surveyed. E.g. the study yielded a plurality of participants who responded being "somewhat" sexually interested in being a furry. Interestingly, in the results section they state {{tq|Specifically, 321 (96.1%) reported that their interest in being furries was sexual to some degree}}. The 99% figure comes from a table a couple pages later, and this discrepancy seems to come from {{tq|the 211 participants who indicated that their primary motivation for being furries was not sexual and who provided open-ended responses explaining their reasons, 34 (16.1%) confirmed that it was in fact primarily sexual (e.g., “It is primarily sexual,” “It pretty much just is sexually motivated”)}}.
:There should also probably be some hedging as the study was run over the internet and sampled only 334 individuals. Given that the furry fandom then probably had at least hundreds of thousands of members, this seems like a pretty small sample size that could be subject to bias. The authors outright acknowledge this, and state that due to the survey methods used {{tq|our sample of male furries may have been biased toward those who were sexually motivated and non-heterosexual}}.
:This isn't to invalidate the study; to me at least it seems robust enough to be included. But too commonly papers are presented on Wikipedia in a manner that implies (or states) certainty where there isn't. [[User:ArkHyena|Ark]][[User_talk:ArkHyena|Hyena]] (they/any) 09:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
------------

I agree with the above. It is not appropriate to make a generalization about an entire demographic based on single case study with a small sample size. This study could contribute data to someone else's review article.

Also, I want to signal that the research takes the perspective of [[Blanchard's transsexualism typology]]. From the perspective of the transgender community, Blanchard's typology is a pseudoscience argument that transgender identity is not valid or real, but is instead better described as sexual attraction to one's own transgender body. While some researchers may be swept into this ideology unawares, this is the ideology that is used to argue for anti-trans/anti-LGBT+ legislation and is the basis for other hate group activity, as shown in [[Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Societal_impact]].

There are some people - including anti-LGBT+ people, people of certain religions, and people of certain politics - who sexualize all kinds of things that other communities would not see as sexual. The research tradition which heavily sexualizes all activities of gay and trans people is being applied here. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 13:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I was leaning toward the heavy bias with the statistics when I first reverted. Which violates our guidelines on [[WP:WEIGHT]] if I'm applying it correctly. [[User:JalenBarks|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:white">Jalen Barks</span>]] [[User talk:JalenBarks|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(Woof)</span>]] 15:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::The study I referenced had a sample size of 334. If I understand correctly, the problem is with the sample size, as you claim it to be biased. However, the wiki article features references where the sample size is even smaller and this doesn't seem to be a problem. <ref>http://www.cannedgeek.com/images/sharedfiles/fss_report_finaldraft.PDF</ref> <ref> https://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gerbasi.pdf </ref> 

::Also I don't think we have consensus here and I think that you shouldn't have reverted the page again. To cite [[User:ArkHyena|Ark]][[User talk:ArkHyena|Hyena]] "This isn't to invalidate the study; to me at least it seems robust enough to be included." And [[User:jmcgnh|jmcgnh]] "if you think there's actually something wrong with that one, you could add that to your discussion" which you haven't done, you just reverted the page outright.[[User:Tubelubie|Tubelubie]] ([[User talk:Tubelubie|talk]]) 20:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
{{talk reflist}}
:::Per [[WP:BRD]], I have done my duty to revert to an acceptable revision to allow the discussion to take place. Yes, there is no problem with the source when talking about certain aspects, but singling out the sexual reasons seems a bit one-sided and this is where Blanchard's typology is applied. [[User:JalenBarks|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:white">Jalen Barks</span>]] [[User talk:JalenBarks|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(Woof)</span>]] 21:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::It was not singled out. It's what has been done in the article numerous times. The section I edited was about sexuality, and the same thing happens with the "furry fiesta" reference. It's cited once (afaik) in the article and only in the sexuality section, and the poll (or study?) touches on many more topics than sexuality. Can you explain why this case is different? [[User:Tubelubie|Tubelubie]] ([[User talk:Tubelubie|talk]]) 21:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::The issue remains with wording and the broader caveats of the study's limitations. I haven't read the study in detail, so I can't really provide a solid rewrite. I'd be willing to when I have more time to do so in a few weeks, but my main area of experience isn't sociology either so it may take a while. Should the study be included though, the limitations should also be communicated in some way{{mdash}}perhaps along the lines of {{tq|A 2019 study conducted by Kevin Hsu and Michael J. Bailey surveyed around 300 members of the fandom online. The results of the survey yielded X, Y, and Z. However, Hsu and Bailey noted that the nature of the study may have been biased toward sexually-motivated members and may not represent the broader fandom.}} The article also stresses that the relevant sexual interests are not harmful and should not be stigmatized (the authors even anticipate the potential of their results being used to perpetuate stigma), which probably should be noted as well. [[User:ArkHyena|Ark]][[User_talk:ArkHyena|Hyena]] (they/any) 11:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, this seems like a more balanced way to write it without seeming bias or misinformed. If it were me talking, I also would have easily said those results can't be a broad representation of the fandom. [[User:JalenBarks|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:white">Jalen Barks</span>]] [[User talk:JalenBarks|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(Woof)</span>]] 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)