Talk:Furfaq

Do you really want to remove completly : "Despite the amazing work put in the FurFaq, its objectivity has never been approved in the french furry community. And the critics given to improve it in 2001 were all rejected in block by the Webmaster." ?

The FurFaq website is very controversed and some of 'us' wouldn't like to see it considered as "The truth about Furry". --Ozone Griffox 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add a Controversy section with references and specific statements. -- Sine 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm I'm not sure how to add a controversy section. Most of the facts about the Furfaq were in the now defunt zoologique newsgroup. But I found an old reference (in french of course) about the Furfaq problems : http://forum.francefurs.org/viewtopic.php?t=1182&start=225
 * "Je sais bien que tout le monde ne peut pas savoir tout sur tout, mais c'est tellement vite arrivé de dire des choses inéxactes vont servir de base et être encrée dans la tête des gens après.


 * Si je prends un exemple (sans relancer de polémique la dessus on n'a pas besoin de ça merci ;) ) la furfaq, c'est très bien et ça donne un premier aperçu, mais ça me gène que ça soit quelqu'un qui ne connais pas certains sujets qui en parle. Par exemple les parties fursuits ou les conventions pour prendre des sujets qui me touche, ça se voit qu'il ne connait pas."


 * Which could be (quickly) translated to:
 * ''Everyone cannot know everything, but it is so quick to say incorrect things which will be used as a basis and will stay deeply anchored in the head of people afterwards. If I take an example (without starting again of polemic about it, no need for that thank you;) ) the furfaq, it gives a first outline, but what bothers me is that is somebody who do not know certain subjects which he speaks about. For example the fursuits parts or conventions to take subjects which touches me, it is obvious he knows nothing about them.


 * --Ozone Griffox 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)