Talk:Burned Furs/Archive2

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hypocricy present in article

"... more generally, the Burned Furs were intolerant of those people who walked up to television cameras and press microphones to declare that Furry Fandom essentially revolved around their own personal kinks. ..."

That's funny, my direct observation and experience was the BURNED FURS declared and enforced through hatred and threats to individuals that their -- the Burned Furs' -- intolerant ways as the one true "furry way." --Chibiabos 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to actual news reports, various furries have indeed claimed that their sole interest in the fandom is sexual and/or that the fandom is "about sex". A classic example are the bestialists who were interviewed by a British 'zine at ConFurence, who stated that they were there to meet people of similar fetish. One then went on to discuss how he has sex with his RL dogs.
I, and dozens of other furries, saw people walking around furrycons wearing bondage gear. One such pair made a nod to "being furry" by having one person collared and leashed and led around by the other. Had the one been in perhaps a dog costume, it might have been a joke, but instead he was completely trussed so that his arms were completely immobile.
The founders of ConFurence routinely advertised the fandom as a sexual outlet, holding forums at other conventions throughout California where they described sexual experience as an uninhibited part of "being furry". Numerous prominent furry artists and fans called them to task for it at a ConDor panel one year, where the two were forced to admit they had been marketing the convention in gay magazines in the same fashion.
Perhaps the most infamous account is of "Bunny Boy", a young and naive man who came to ConFurence 8 in the belief that it was something of a "coming out" convention. To that end, he bounded into the front lobby of the Knott's Berry Farm Hotel, wearing nothing but bunny ears and a Dixie cup, and proceeded to perform what he considered to be an erotic dance which included flashing his butt in the face of people trying to ignore him. He apologized for the incident when he realized his mistake, but ultimately the fault lies with those who told him that CF was "about sex".
Burned Fur formed in reaction to, not prior to, these and other similar events. As for Burned Fur even *having* a "One True Furry Way", you'd be hard-pressed to find two BFs who agreed on what that way should be, except that whatever it might be, it did not include socially-unacceptable public acts or acceptance of fetishes as "normal". It did not include the grafting of New Age ideology onto a fandom about anthropomorphic animals. And it did not include approval of bestiality, legal or otherwise. To most of Burned Fur's detractors, this position was and is only explainable as "homophobia", "Christian extremism", and/or "bigotry". --Calbeck 18:58 and 18:59, 14 Aug 2007 (UTC)
Oh, those wacky Burned Furs! Always complaining about how everyone else behaves in public to divert attention from their own socially-unacceptable public acts... like when Burned Fur Mitch Marmel flew an anatomically-correct inflatable pig around the public areas of ConFurence. Man, if I did something like that, the screaming would've been heard on Jupiter. I guess it just goes to show Burned Furs' supposed concern about public behavior really was just a lot of hot air, huh? —Xydexx 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Threats and actions

While Burned Fur claimed that none of this was a problem if kept properly as a private matter, in private areas and within the law, they frequently targeted furry fans whose only "crime" was to criticize Burned Fur's in-your-face tactics.

That's funny, my direct observation and experience was the BURNED FURS declared and enforced through hatred and threats to individuals that their -- the Burned Furs' -- intolerant ways as the one true "furry way."

Is there any documentation that Burned Fur, either as individuals or collectively, made any threats or harassed anyone beyond posting on the Usenet or web boards? Are there any real specifics beyond friend-of-a-friend or "I heard something once"? Any names or direct actions? Is there anything at all that's documented and backed? I keep reading about how Burned Fur did everything shy of perpetrate 9/11, but I haven't seen anything to back it up. Given the degree of information presented about Sibe, it seems that if there was any fire behind the smoke, it would be easy to prove and document here. Otherwise, the pejorative implications that Burned Fur was riding through Furry like the KKK on a night mission are nothing but unbacked heresay, or more likely, febrile fantasies of hypersensitive furries with victim complexes and a dislike of differing opinions.

Since there's a general move on Wikifur to name everyone in Burned Fur, and since terms like "harass" and "threaten" are being used to described the actions of those who were members of Burned Fur, it seems a point of fairness to either prove the more inflammatory accusations or drop them entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Is there any documentation that Burned Fur, either as individuals or collectively, made any threats or harassed anyone beyond posting on the Usenet or web boards?
Wait, are you trying to say that threats or harassment made via Usenet are somehow less severe than if they were made through any other medium? If that's the case, I'd have to disagree. I think that a threat is a threat, regardless of whatever communications medium may have been used to send it. --Douglas Muth 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking if Burned Fur ever did anything in person. You can ignore the web or the Usenet, but you can't ignore someone in your face. For that matter, did they ever actually THREATEN anyone, even on the web? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
There was Handog threatening to kill Blumrich, Clint Forrester threatening Xydexx, and a few more, that I can't pulled up from here,... and if you ask why I haven't put it up on the BF page, you will see on my "user page" that I need to do some major work on this article (it's incomplete, a lot of references need to be added, people stats, dates, etc,...). (Spirou) 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the notorious Hangdog/Blumrich beef-o-rama had nothing to do with Burned Fur and was some dust up about a statement Blumrich made over 9-11. Xydexx has also made threats, specifically against Something Awful, so should we view his threats with equal gravity? Threats over the internet are the stuff of laughable drama (Blackdragon's ranting comes to mind, as do the occasional threats against ED/CYD/4Chan you see in Live Journal or web boards). If the sum total of Burned Fur's reign of terror was one threat against Xydexx (which I believe was eventually apologized for), then the above italicized statements need to be removed, especially as the text says "they frequently targeted". Again, did Burned Fur ever do anything beyond the screen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
This has already been debunked elsewhere, but for the record anyone who seriously thinks I support violence against Something Awful needs to have their head examined. —Xydexx 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and when I (or somebody elese) gets around to continue work in the article, you may able to read about it, until then, there will be a dearth of data regarding this particular point in the afore mentioned article, so I suggest the use of web search engines =)

Also, statements like "...or more likely, febrile fantasies of hypersensitive furries with victim complexes and a dislike of differing opinions..." leads me to ponder that your interests about this data inclusion doesn't have anything much to do with "fairness," as much as a "bias,"... but that's IMHO, and doesn't represent the views of this Wiki ^-^ 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I took your advice and looked on the web. I didn't find any Burned Fur threats towards others, but I did find a sort-of threat against Burned Fur (by one person):
If you have any other sources, please post them, especially if it shows Burned Fur ever did anything more than make posts on the internet.
I also found this, which is an outsider's view of the Burned Fur conflict:
As no support has been presented to date showing that Burned Furs "frequently targeted" people merely for dissenting with their "in-your-face tactics", I am removing that specific allegation. Likewise, because there has been presented no supporting data to show such, I am removing the allegation that people believed Burned Fur to be harassment-based by dint of the t-shirts. It is my understanding in any event that these shirts bore no derogatory statements and only showed the Burned Fur symbol. --- Calbeck, 6 Jul 2008
As one of the furry fans who was frequently targeted by Burned Fur due to my disagreement with their in-your-face tactics, I have restored that historically-accurate information. As you may well remember, most of the fans opposed to Burned Fur had no problem with public decorum, they just didn't want to be associated with what was essentially a hate group.
I have also restored the information about the Burned Fur t-shirts, which you also may remember had the Burned Fur logo on the front and the slogan "I don't have a lifestyle, I have a life" on the back, which was intended as an insult against furry lifestylers.
In the future, please take care to do adequate research on subjects of articles so you don't accidentally delete historically-accurate information. — Xydexx 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Citation, please, regarding your claims of being targeted "merely for dissenting". How were you "targeted", and over what "dissent"? I will also note the obvious point that the slogan, as you have presented it, cannot be considered "harassment" without introducing PoV. Your definition would, for example, require classifying vehicle stickers showing Calvin peeing on a Chevrolet logo to be "harassment of Chevy owners". Having and stating a personal distaste for a given thing does not equate to harassment of persons who prefer that given thing. Your statement that Burned Fur was a "hate group" is likewise PoV, as is your statement regarding "most of the fans opposed to Burned Fur".
I specifically recall your well-documented personal complaints, not that the fandom would be associated with Burned Fur, but that the press would find out about socially-unaccepted public behavior in the fandom via Burned Furs' complaints about same. This is a position you have openly held since the '90s, completely ignoring certain basic and obvious facts. Such as that the press had already been running articles about such behavior before Burned Fur existed, that Burned Fur never sought out press coverage, and that not one press article exists wherein the author discovered socially-unacceptable activity in the fandom as a result of first discovering Burned Fur.
History has shown that the press paid Burned Fur virtually no attention, instead focusing their pens and cameras on those engaging in the behavior itself. The list of such articles would take up an extra page all by themselves, from "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers" to the MTV Sex Special. You continue to ignore these simple facts, apparently in pursuit of a personal problem with an organization that has been nonfunctional for most of a decade. Calbeck 13 Aug 2008
I certainly wasn't being targeted by Burned Fur for misbehaving, nor was I targeted for having anything against public decorum. Indeed, it seems my big crime was that I said if they didn't want to be considered a hate group they shouldn't act like one. And I certainly wasn't alone in that opinion. So yes, targeted for dissent. Feel free to consult Google Groups for examples of Burned Furs behaving badly if you're so eager to see them; I assure you there are plenty.
Your backpedalling on the anti-Lifestyler t-shirts has been noted. First you say they didn't exist, and when proven wrong about that you're now claiming it wasn't harassment—despite the fact that the Manifesto and Burned Furs (including yourself) wanted Lifestylers run out of the fandom on a rail.
History has shown that Burned Fur has shown up in no less than three articles, none of them positive. History has also shown that we first started getting some good press after Burned Fur had pretty much choked to death on its own bile. History has also shown, via way of the Vanity Fair article (which would have festered forgotten in a landfill a month later had it not been dutifully transcribed and posted by Corey Vallejo (who, like the Burned Furs SOP, felt furry fandom needed a kick in the ass) which spawned several additional negative articles about the fandom) that putting all this negative stuff in the spotlight is abysmal PR, and makes the job of folks who are actually trying to improve the fandom that much harder. In other words, on one side we've got people who say furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals, and on the other side, we've got Burned Furs telling anyone and everyone who will listen than furry fandom is full of creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs. Yet you continue to ignore these simple facts, in pursuit of some misguided crusade to rewrite history.
Burned Fur was an embarrassing chapter in this fandom's history and a perfect example of how not to improve the fandom. Indeed, the main reason the fandom's image is so well today is not due to hate-filled manifestos or temper tantrums from disgruntled fans, but rather from the ones who didn't quit and decided to lead by example by investing their time, money, and effort into improving things. —Xydexx 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot or will not support your allegations, cease making them. If the material is on Google, that is for you, as the claimant, to find and link to it. Filling this talk page with your PoV personal accusations is not helping either. From what you just got done telling us, the sum total of your being "targeted" for "dissent" appears to have been Burned Furs disagreed with you.
You are also leaping to the conclusion that giving your claim about the t-shirts good-faith credence amounts to a character flaw on my part. Being willing to give you the benefit of the doubt is not "backpedaling". Yet you use this minor act of charity on my part to throw in a whole new set of allegations. Here you are claiming I said the t-shirts never existed at all; the record shows that I never questioned their existence. I am not going to waste space here rebutting the same claims you have made over and over again for ten years. It's on you to back it up, not me to disprove it.
As has been noted, and which you apparently have ignored, all of the articles you reference had the fandom's kinks and fetishes as their focus, with Burned Fur being mentioned in passing as opposed to those kinks and fetishes each time. All were published in "underground" venues, and the totality of the Burned Fur coverage --- such as it was --- was spread out over the course of more than six years. While I understand your desire to maximize the image of a negative press blitz brought about by the bumbling about of Burned Fur itself, there simply never was one.
I'm going to finish up with a reminder that you've already been told not to attribute events and outcomes to Burned Fur using fuzzy logic. This is a Wiki about Burned Fur, not every unaffiliated person you think should be lumped in with them. If you want to do a Wiki on Mr. Vallejo, do so. Calbeck 15 August 2008
I can indeed back up my claims, and I have a history of doing so, so I don't think my ability to so do is in question. On the contrary, what I'd like to see is for you to back up yours for a change. I've already debunked your various revisionist claims (i.e., that the "hacks and pervs" statement wasn't part of any Burned Fur mission statement (and then falsely claiming it was "an opinion piece"), that Burned Fur was founded in mid-1997 and was responsible for standards of conduct at Anthrocon, and so on) previously.
Not to put too fine a point on it: I think if anyone's claims are going to be subject to additional scrutiny, maybe we should focus on the guy who already has a history of adding unsubstantiated statements to this article. That person isn't me.
I stand corrected on the anti-lifestyler t-shirt comment; you claimed the statement didn't exist, this archived page indicates it did.
You've admitted Burned Fur has appeared in articles (while attempting to trivialize them as "underground"—hey, isn't ignoring negative publicity one of the things Burned Fur constantly accused me of?) so you can no longer claim Burned Fur never received any negative press.
I have not attributed any events or outcomes to Burned Fur using fuzzy logic.
As I've said before, Burned Fur's history isn't a flattering one, but maybe if they hadn't been so confrontational in the first place, things would have turned out differently. —Xydexx 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported allegation of Hangdog making homophobic or other personal attacks in August 2000 via removed. Performed a search of Google Groups for "hangdog", "august," 2000". One post from that person, appears for the entire period of August 2000: a memoriam to the passing of Carl Barks. No attacks or hate speech of any kind is evidenced in the post. A search using the person's real name turned up no further posts for August 2000.
Unsupported allegation of threat made by Hangdog against Eric Blumrich removed for lack of support material, also off-topic. The section regards Burned Fur supposedly "targeting" its opponents, yet the allegation is of one Burned Fur making a threat against another. It is notable this is the same person who threatened you personally and whom you have edited the page to show they apologized for doing so.
Various "citation needed" claims removed regarding material which has already been cited in this page and in linked material.
Rather than present support for your current allegations, you have brought forward materials unrelated to your current editing attempts, for the singular purpose of making personal attacks. You claim a "history" of backing up your statements, yet continue to refuse to do so, and apparently want your personal vetting of yourself to suffice in exchange for actual data. Calbeck 15 August 2008
Hangdog's homophobic remarks and Burned Furs general inability and unwillingness to denounce him for it restored and sourced. Hangdog's threat against Eric Blumrich restored and sourced. Mistaken identity of Hangdog removed. "Hacks and pervs" text from Burned Fur Mission Statement restored and sourced. Please discontinue your campaign of removing historically-accurate information from the article.Xydexx 23:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, check the edit history, and you'll find I put that back myself. I Googled and found an archived copy of the Burned Fur Mission Statement, and it did not contain tht line. HOWEVER, I continued to research the matter and rediscovered GreenReaper's link to the Wayback Machine archive from the 2005 discussion and therefore reinserted the material. I also gave links to both versions of the Statement.
Secondly, the totality of the "homophobic remarks" you reference equates to one sarcastic statement made about you, specifically in reaction to someone else's snarky comment about your behavior. What is there to "denounce" here? Sarcasm? Is that it? Threat against Blumrich removed because it's one Burned Fur threatening another and doesn't support the allegations that Burned Fur "targeted" it's opponents. Instead of supporting your existing allegations, you're merely adding new ones and throwing in creative interpretations. This continuing issue has been referred to WikiFur staff. Calbeck 15 August 2008
Glad to see you're finally doing some research. I look forward to seeing some evidence to back up the unsourced claims you're been making.
Like Burned Furs before you, you make excuses about Hangdog's homophobic behavior instead of denouncing it. Some things never change, I guess! -=) Burned Fur's opposition thought it was uncalled for. Hell, even Stukafox of all people thought it was out of line. Ever wonder how Burned Fur got a reputation for being homophobic?
Threat against Blumrich added because it falls under the auspices of "incidents of Burned Furs crossing the line into the realm of personal threats"—those are your words, not mine. It's funny (strange, not ha-ha) how you demand I source material and then try to delete it when it doesn't agree with your PoV.
Looking forward to assistance from the WikiFur staff! —Xydexx 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Opposition" section references clarified: since the section is about the organization's run-ins with their opponents, reports of infighting remain off-topic for that section. If you wish to create a section for such cases, do so. You still have not supported your allegations that Burned Fur "targeted" its opponents.
Your linked reference to Hangdog's "homophobic remarks" contain a single remark which does not contain any indication of hatred or fear of gays. Hence it was not "homophobic", except as interpreted by you, the recipient of the insult. Nor, for that matter, was it a "libelous" remark as you claim; personal insults and sarcastic commentary are not interpretable as such. Again, you are merely inserting PoV. Removed.
Self-referential links removed. If you are going to accuse a person or group of specific behavior, show links to that behavior. Linking to a post that contains nothing more than yourself alleging such behavior took place does not provide support for the claim that such behavior actually occurred.
On review of this talk-page, discovered that it has already been pointed out that Hangdog threatened Blumrich over a statement made regarding 9/11. It had nothing to do with Burned Fur. Without any further support for that claim on your part, I am removing it.
"Anti-Furry" designation removed; nothing indicates Burned Fur opposed the existence of furries or the promotion of furry fandom. Instead, all Burned Fur documents to date indicate the group supported improving the fandom's image and attracting new members to its ranks through such they saw it.Calbeck 15 August 2008
Link to Hangdog's homophobic and libelous remarks restored. That they are not homophobic and libelous is your PoV; everyone else thought they were inappropriate. The onus is on you to provide evidence Burned Fur isn't homophobic by showing someone in Burned Fur found these remarks inappropriate. Indeed, if "most" members of Burned Fur were gay or bi, as you claim (another unsupported assertation, I might note), you should have no trouble finding a statement from a Burned Fur denouncing Hangdog's remarks. If you're going to demand I source material, don't delete it when it disagrees with your PoV and makes you look bad.
Anti-furry designation restored because you yourself admit "Portal of Evil, Something Awful, the /b/tards and Anonymous have together achieved the goal of Burned Fur." These are not groups that are in any way supportive of furry fandom.
Please also provide evidence for your unsupported claim that Nick Mamatas formally renounced statements that Burned Fur was homophobic. Saying so doesn't make it true, and if I can back up my statements with sources I expect you to do the same. —Xydexx 17:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Reporter" incident?

A news reporter later took up this claim and published a piece on Burned Fur being a hate group, but later had to retract it when the reporter himself admitted he could not find reasonable evidence to support the claim.

When did this happen? Which reporter, where was it published, and when was it retracted?

This sounds more like Calbeck's inaccurate version of his dust-up with Nick Mamatas (recounted here at the entry Ladder Trick) rather than a true summation of something related to Burned Furs. --Lynn Onyx 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is "Calbeck's inaccurate version" ? At Ladder Trick ? --EarthFurst 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've edited Ladder Trick subsequent to my talk note above, but the version previous to my edits can be found here.
I also did an edit to this page (Burning Furs) which removed the sentence above but included a link to the Ladder Trick entry. --Lynn Onyx 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Calbeck here. I had a personal email discussion with the above-mentioned author on this subject. In the end, he agreed that there were in fact no grounds for calling Burned Fur "homophobic", although he continued to contend that it was a hate group. As this was a matter of his personal opinion, and he said so, I left it at that.
Lynn Onyx has a personal beef with me: I banned the character from a no-flame debate board I operated during the '90s, in direct reaction to her position that flaming was a matter of "free speech". When I refused to recant, Lynn responded by enlisting her friends to spam the board. When I banned them, they merely enlisted their friends to continue the attack. Lynn herself ran a flame-specific board on the same site at the same time. For her, this seems to have been a matter of personal ideology. She is also a long-time fan of the above-mentioned author, and appears to have been the original source for his article. His last email to me was a notification that his site had been edited in accordance with his agreement: "My fansite, maintained and operated solely by [real name removed], has been updated as regards Burned Fur and Scott Malcomson." It should be noted that [real name removed] is the RL name of Lynn Onyx. Lynn is therefore fully knowledgeable of the above facts. --Calbeck 14 August 2007
I removed the real name above, as the person concerned has mentioned that they prefer not to have their real name published. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits by

Someone with better knowledge of this topic and the history of this article needs to validate the edits made by this anonymous IP, if for no other reason than they are anonymous and extensive, and appear to have a significant POV change from what I can tell. I am loathe to simply revert them but it does appear at least some of the original text should be restored. Simba B 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs from the recent edit, since they seemed to be POV and were lacking in sources.
I would work on that article more, but I am kinda irked that the individual "Calbeck" blanked this entire discussion page in the course of his edits.... --Douglas Muth 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny, here I am, on 14 Aug 2007, and I see the entire discussion page right here. Don't know how adding to a page "blanks" it; the only button I'm hitting is "save page". --Calbeck 19:03 and 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Right here. Nice try, bub. Simba B 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you're accusing me of blanking a discussion page I'm ADDING to? I will point out, however, that IE has been hanging on this end, both here and when editing LJ, so it may be a simple glitch on this end. Also, I have a habit of copying an entire article before posting, due to the occasional tendency of a site or IE to crash, thus forcing the entire thing to be retyped. It's possible I did indeed blank the page in the process of saving it, and if I did so, I apologize. It was certainly not intentional.
As to the clipped paragraphs, they are in part verified by the existing links. And there's no contention over the fact that the timeline occurred as I presented it: the negative publicity obtained from Wired, Vanity Fair, and other news venues pre-dated the existence of Burned Fur, and there is no indication whatsoever that any of this or other negative press occurred because of any statements made by any Burned Furs. However, I DID remove a PoV claim by a previous editor that this was indeed the case. --Calbeck 19:16 and 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, if someone wants to clip out my material, on grounds that you have facts that contradict what I'm saying, fine, that's how Wiki works. Sitting there and clipping out confirmable data without any attempt to verify is simply rude. I don't clip anything that isn't verifiably incorrect, myself. --Calbeck 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll buy the browser glitch theory, since you do not seem to have a history of blanking pages.
Regarding the clipped paragraphs, maybe I just missed that. There was a fair bit of material for me to sift through. May I suggest <ref> tags in future edits? --Douglas Muth 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, because the user has insisted on repeatedly re-adding his disputed text to the page without any consensus whatsoever, I blocked his IP for two hours as a cool down period. If we can get some consensus on the validity of the text, it would help. Thanks. Simba B 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. So, here are the problems that came up here:

  • Lack of communication. Calbeck did not use edit summaries (and in fact was not logged in to start with). This was a big problem because it was unclear why edits were being made or what the full intent was. When the discussion came here, it should have been directed towards specific points mentioned in the article, but instead it turned into an accusation of bias.
  • Lack of good faith regarding editing practices. Calbeck has been here before, but is not by any means an experienced editor. It is appropriate to assume - at least in the first instance - that things like surprise removals of sections are mistakes rather than deliberate attempts at removal of information. New users who are not familiar with the history often edit with copy-and-paste methods and may copy and paste incorrectly by accident.
  • Assumption of policy knowledge/understanding. As noted above, Calbeck is not necessarily fully familiar with WikiFur standards and policies (for example, that it is inappropriate to continuously revert to your version). He would probably not have known that doing so continually just because he thought it was right would lead to a block. Few would even appreciate the full reason for this without reading something like three-revert rule at Wikipedia, and we do not even have it as official policy. It is a very good idea to spell out to non-vandals upfront that they will be blocked if they continue with their course of action, and to give specifics of what they can do to avoid this.
    • As an aside . . . as Simba B highlighted, reverting whole edits is not ideal, either. It is rarely a good idea to revert whole edits except in cases of plain vandalism. Instead, see if you rewrite it to make a version that includes the information of both, but the POV tone of neither. Reducing text may be necessary in this process, but eliminating contributions altogether makes people think their view is just being dismissed totally. It is everyone's responsibility to do this, but admins are likely to be more experienced at it, and I think an attempt should be made to do so before blocking over it, if possible. Usually there are elements which both sides can agree on.
  • Lack of good faith regarding assumption of bias. Both sides assumed to a certain degree that the other must be biased. However, acting directly on this or letting your suspicions of it show is seldom a good idea. Few people ever believe that they are biased, and so it doesn't help to accuse people of it; it just makes them angry. Besides, you're likely to be wrong - it is easy to attribute things to malice that could be explained some other way.
  • Insufficient sourcing. Contentious arguments must be backed up with specific references. When things are in doubt, saying it's "confirmable" does not cut it. Cite your sources with the <ref> and <references /> tags as described in the Furry Book of Style, or by linking to the article about them on the wiki, and make sure they say what you think they say.
  • Writing as if both sides were in competition and only one side could possibly be right. "In reality . . ." is seldom a good paragraph starter. Be very careful about dismissing one interpretation of the matter, especially if you are the holder of an opposing interpretation. The original article is not innocent here, either. This is another reason not to fully revert non-vandalism edits, because it suggests you fully agree with the text that is there right now, which leads to . . .
  • Sourcing of contentious information works both way. It is up to the person adding such information to source it, specifically and accurately, especially when challenged. But, it is also the moral responsibility of the people challenging it to consider what other information in the article might also be removed on those grounds. Just because it is in the article right now does not mean it is the gospel truth. If someone is replying to an unsourced statement then one might expect their response to be unsourced as well. It would be better to remove all relevant unsourced information and assertions to the talk page, otherwise we run the risk of preserving information that is not accurate over that which is, and arguing over an article that we don't necessarily agree with fully.

Whew. And all that in just a few hours! I have had a chat with Calbeck and I think he understands the reasons why there were problems a little better now. So, let's take a look at the article content, see what assertions are supported by factual basis, reference those that are, and remove those that cannot be verified, to prevent this problem coming up again. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A Bit Of A Dilemma

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have approximately 9 megs worth of material about the hate group known as Burned Fur archived. On the one hand, I could probably take the time to organize it into some sort of readable format, which would certainly help document the group's belligerent attitude toward, well, pretty much everyone in the fandom. It's understandable that former Burned Furs wouldn't like the unflattering picture it paints, but full disclosure of what the group was actually about and actually did might be valuable in illustrating why these TBOF-style crusades never work, and perhaps prevent other fans from repeating Burned Fur's mistakes. On the other hand, I'm a bit reluctant to do so, as most former Burned Furs have come to realize what a liability the group was (read: is) and don't want their names associated with it anymore. Considering the Vanity Fair article occurred during Burned Fur's watch, and most of the positive press we've gotten occurred after they had finally faded into obscurity, they're pretty much an embarrassing footnote in the fandom's history. —Xydexx 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not arguing for or against putting such information here or elsewhere (though large amount of source material would be best posted elsewhere as we're not in the business of hosting such documents), but as an aside . . . it's important we not rely on arguments like "bad things Z happen during time period X" + "group Y active during time period X" -> "bad things Z caused by group Y". Don't imply a causative relationship unless there is specific proof that they caused specific things (and then, be satisfied with naming those specific things and explaining the proof rather than trying to extend it). That is, as I understand it, the same thing the Burned Furs did in some situations, and it's faulty logic. Good and bad things happen all the time, often for reasons that are outside the control of any one group and which may have been forming over time - e.g. the recent piece in Entourage, which was inspired over a year ago, or Furry Tales, which was technically inspired by Anthrocon but which it has little control over. This goes both ways, of course - as far as I know the Burned Furs had very little impact, good or bad, on the public image of the fandom. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And now, addressing whether or not we should add such information - while I appreciate that some members may no longer have the same association or beliefs that they once did, it is not right for us to make unsupported assertions about this group. Either we should back up what we are saying, or we should not say it at all. If we do, we must be careful not to be selective in the choice of evidence - if we know that there is a fact that runs contrary to the general theme (for example, Burned Furs who did not take part in belligerent activity) it is only right to say and show that as well, even if it weakens an argument. WikiFur is not the place to make or continue arguments, but the place to get the kind of understanding into history that would be gained by an omniscient neutral onlooker. Sources are useful for this, but they can quickly become less useful if they are pre-selected and interpreted with the intent of coming to a particular conclusion. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, and I don't think providing an accurate timeline of Burned Fur's disastrous tenure implies a causative relationship at all. I agree unsupported assertations do not belong here, which is why I'm considering making my archives available. We should accurately state the facts and let folks come to their own conclusions. —Xydexx 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing your archives, too. They may help put to rest some of the debates that have been going back and forth over the Burned Furs article. --Douglas Muth 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also be interested in seeing your archives, Xydexx. It's been three days short of a full year since Muth asked to see them. If you can't or won't provide the material to support your repeated edits of this page in favor of your view of things, then please cease inserting such PoV claims as that Burned Fur "targeted" "dissidents". It simply comes across as demonization otherwise. --Calbeck 13 Aug 2008
As I mentioned, I haven't made my archives available out of consideration for former members of Burned Fur who realize what a liability and embarrassment association with the group is. There is, however, an abundance of publically-available material via Google Groups showcasing Burned Fur's disastrous tenure which supports "my" position (i.e., reality). Given your previous history of getting even basic facts about Burned Fur wrong (whether accidental or deliberate I leave as an exercise to the reader), I think you seriously need to drop the baseless accusations of my alleged "PoV claims" and tone down your own Quixotic attempts at revisionism. I know how desperate you are to make Burned Fur look like it wasn't a complete failure, but the facts really aren't on your side here. —Xydexx 05:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Link and support your allegations or leave them off the site. I'm not even going to respond to your personal attacks on my character here. I've certainly done no such thing to you. Calbeck 15 August 2008
As I stated elsewhere, I am not going to drag this guy through the mud for your entertainment. —Xydexx 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see these links too. I see some pretty serious accusations being made here, and I believe that providing evidence would be in everyone's best interests so that we may put this issue to rest. --Douglas Muth 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A review of the archive page will show a number of Calbeck's false claims debunked. If you want specific evidence, let me know. —Xydexx 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for references supporting your own claims, such as that Burned Fur "targeted" people merely for "dissenting". Quite to the contrary, at least one person said that the whole of the Burned Fur membership should be buried in shallow graves to "solve all the problems in the fandom". It would seem on the basis of this and many other incendiary comments made by the group's opponents, that they were the ones targeted for having dissenting opinions. Calbeck 15 August 2008
Burned Fur isn't exactly in a tenable position to complain about incendiary comments as their founding documents are based on them, and you yourself admit they are angry and irrational. You even recently referred to them as a "trainwreck." Perhaps instead of continuing your Quixotic quest to defend them, you might do a little research into their atrocious behavior and perhaps shed some light on why exactly they were so hell-bent on attacking people who didn't behave inappropriately in public and didn't give furry fandom bad press, but rather whose only crime was pointing out Burned Furs were incapable of extended the courtesy and consideration they demanded for themselves to others. —Xydexx 06:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What did they actually do?

I'm curious about what went on before I found the fandom, but all this talk about how to classify the burned furs, or whether an action by some member was Burned Furs-related isn't really answered the question; what did they actually do, as Burned Furs? Isnn't that the most important thing? Rather than fight over the Category or what adjectives to use to describe a Usenet post, describe what they did, and let their actions speak for themselves? --Rat 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with letting their actions speak for themselves, because with few exceptions Burned Furs were their own worst enemy.
Burned Furs often claim they just wanted to improve furry fandom. That in and of itself would never have been a problem. It was the methods in which Burned Fur attempted to accomplish this supposed goal that pretty much everyone disagreed with. To most fans, Burned Fur's methods were at best another version of the tried-and-failed TBOF tactics with more vitriol (because nothing makes a point better than yelling a lot, right?), and at worst an attention-getting troll group.
Overall, their effect (what little influence they had) on the fandom was a definite negative. Mainly it was their own bad attitude and behavior which caused problems. Aside from sparking constant flamewars on, actions by Burned Furs included offensive t-shirts and pamphlets, threats of violence against other fans, homophobic slurs, and betrayal of convention staff confidentiality. It said in one of their founding documents that lifestylers should be "mocked with maximum cruelty."
In a nutshell, their behavior was in many cases worse than many of the fans they were complaining about, and the belligerent attitude of their founding documents (rants rarely make good policy) and members turned a lot of people off.
(As an aside, it should be noted that the second incarnation of Burned Furs, Improved Anthropomorphics, inexplicably held on to these documents despite their overwhelming unpopularity. I'll leave speculation on whether this means they really are just an attention-getting troll group as an exercise to the reader.)
The group became a liability and public relations nightmare for anyone involved with them. For example, many fans stopped attending ConFurence specifically due to rumors that it was a Burned Fur con after Darrel Exline took over—a rumor which was bolstered by remarks from Burned Fur members Hangdog and Major Matt Mason. Other fans decided not to patronize artists who had joined Burned Fur, as they understandably didn't want to see their money going to people who wanted to make them feel unwelcome in furry fandom.
Toward the end, Burned Fur was losing members as fast as they were gaining them. Most former Burned Fur members have since distanced themselves as far as possible from the group to avoid the stigma it continues to carry even today. As many understandably do not want even their names to be associated with having been members, I have exercised due diligence in respecting their wishes as much as possible.
If you need sources for any of this, I'm perfectly willing to direct you to them. In the meantime, however, you may want to consider putting the kibosh on Calbeck's bad habit of deleting sourced material he doesn't agree with, and hold him to the same standards of providing evidence that I'm currently fulfilling. He seems to be getting quite brazen lately (apparently due to Burned Fur's recent ten-year anniversary) and has been editing this article with an eye toward portraying Burned Fur in a way which never existed anywhere but in his own well-constructed reality. —Xydexx 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Was a group like Burned Fur necessary?

Recently, claims have been made that Burned Fur wasn't actually a hate group devoted to mocking fans "with maximum cruelty", but instead that their goals were to "prohibit sexualized public behavior, control media exposure, and use decorum in how porn could be displayed in public areas at conventions" and that these alleged reforms were opposed at every turn.

Revisiting many of these old threads over the past few days paints a much different picture, however. If one examines the time period between CF8—reasonably the apex of bad behavior complained about—and what occurred before Burned Fur was established in late 1998, one discovers things like the creation of Albany Anthrocon with its Standards of Conduct (a model which was later implemented by other conventions), as well as CF's InfurNation newsletter stating its improved code of conduct encouraging public discretion WRT "leather shock-gear", the taming down of the Pet Auction, and so on. Interestingly, there is no evidence that these reforms were opposed by anyone.

Contrary the oft-quoted claims by Burned Furs that their in-your-face attitude was necessary because people "weren't listening", all of these reforms were implemented before Burned Fur was established.

There is nothing in the Burned Fur founding documents stating any goals to "prohibit sexualized public behavior, control media exposure, and use decorum in how porn could be displayed in public areas at conventions." Indeed, the claim seems to be made only as a flimsy attempt to save face in light of Burned Fur's embarrassing—and as it turns out, wholly unnecessary—history. —Xydexx 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


They are the Future and Hope of the Furry Fandom!!! They fight against evil things like yiff and hentai!!!! THEY ARE TRUE FURRIES!!!! Stand up all victims of opression!!!! ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ Furries of the World unite!!!!! ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭