WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-11-28T22:35:32Z

Furthling: /* {{appropriate}} */

I think this category would be best as a userspace category. Christian furs, too. If we start allowing religious categories in the main article space, would we then start allowing sexual orientation categories as well? [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]] 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[[:Category:Christian furs]] came about largely because of a list of people in the article [[Christian fur]]. Categories seem tidier and somewhat more useful than lists of people, to me, and main-space categories for articles contain people who are not WikiFur users. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 04:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I don't have an opinion because I don't know the details of a particular convention, I don't know the difference; wikifur presents a pretty novel situation in that there are pages about individuals, but it's not, you know, LJ or myspace. If there's an argument in favor of expanding categories on individuals, it probably starts there. Sex-orientation categories? It's a pretty germane category on individuals, especially given the charcter of the fandom. But obviously also problematic. E.g., a "closeted gay" category. Wouldn't that be charming. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

===Re:<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>===
I'm not clear why this article has been tagged for <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>, when, one, it's stood without comment for quite some time, when the equivalent category pertaining to christians, is not so-tagged, and since nobody will be able to respond to the next request I'll now make:

Could somebody please point to a coherent wikifur policy describing what makes categories inappropriate to wikifur?

Obviously a category is content, but it's not an article. As religions and the furry fandom all pertain to the realm of imaginary things, they're inextricably interwoven, and religious stances are of inherent interest both in works (see pholph.com for example), and of people.

Arguably Wikifur should have a standard of noteworthiness that would leave 90% of all personal pages on Wikifur marked <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> and candidates for deletion. Short of doing that, however, it is inclusive of people '''as such''', and religious stance is entirely pertient to understanding a person, in addition to understanding the nuances of the fandom.

The appropriate and deletion categories should be removed. Contrary to the edit comments the category specifically refers to a distinctive outlook, and accusing it of not being a distinctive outlook begs two questions: one, how is it not so if one acknowledges (as I do) that Christian Furs, is, and two, where are the specs on what is "sufficiently distinctive?" This sounds more like an effort to excise unpopular points of view. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:The length of time an item has existed on WikiFur is irrelevant, and discussion can be begun or continued at any time; see the top of this talk page for some unresolved points about this category.

:There is a tendancy on WikiFur to write up policy once a consistent practice has come about, rather than writing policy in order to bring about a consistent practice. There has been discussion of various categories on the talk pages for those categories, or on wider categories in some cases.

:Categories serve as a way of organising information. Suggesting that this category is not useful is not the same as suggesting that information pointed at by the category should be excised from WikiFur.

:I hope the above has helped your understanding somewhat, and that others will add to discussion here. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::If you review what you've just written, I trust you'll see there's an inconsistency between saying that the length of time an item has existed without comment is 'irrelevant' and saying that 'consistent practice' is the norm for formulating policy-- it has been a consistent practice of WikiFur to include this particular category as a way of categorizing person pages-- even after its appropriateness was raised and ample time allowed for discussion of its appropriateness.

::I'm not sure I entirely agree that convention alone establishes good policy-- at it's basest, convention has led to the disorganization of information that the wide world typifies, and which I think everyone expects a Wiki to improve upon.

::But if you think convention should drive policy, how then can you feel that using <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> is warranted in this case? Convention already includes other categories of '''precisely''' this sort, and person pages are a large part of Wikifur, and the categories that are completely appropriate to them, as such, cover all sorts of things just like this.

::Also, in fact, the function of a category is itself to provide information-- information about where items that are members of the category can be found. To suggest the category be removed is very much to suggest removing information. And the question is not of what's "useful" but of what's "appropriate," which at present, with the template used here to express it, literally marks the category for deletion. The template directly proposes eliminating specific information very much germane to furs and identity as a fur. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the template at this time. It contains proposal for deletion, and so falls under [[Wikifur:Proposed_deletion#conflicts|Proposal for deletion, sub 'Conflicts']]. I trust this expresses WikiFur's policy and the view common to wikis that where there is a disagreement about deletion of content, the assumption is not to delete. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

==<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>==

I'd like to hear from whomever thinks the appropriate tag belongs on the page as to why articles (or categories, in this case) are considered appropriate or inappropriate, in general. If there's no clear rationale for adding such a tag to a page, I'm a little confused why anyone would in fact add it. And I've asked before where the standard of article appropriateness can be found, but don't recall any clear answers. Incidentally, at this time the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> template redirects to the <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> template. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

:Also, per this policy:

:'''Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, explain why on the article Talk page. '''

:It really was inappropriate to re-add the tag, since it contains the proposal for deletion. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

::No it wasn't. That ''proposed'' policy applies strictly to the {{tl|prod}} template, which I have never actually seen used on WikiFur. Moreover, what normally happens on Wikipedia if you remove that is a full-blown deletion - and ''that'' template is not removable until the discussion is concluded. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Does Wikifur have an actual policy on this that the proposed policy seeks to replace, then? Does it have a broad body of other actual policies? If "no" to either or both, there's simply a lack of policy, isn't there? Into which problematic vacuum the proposed policy is inevitably drawn?

:::Meanwhile, the <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> tag includes candidate for deletion, and if there's some sort of crucial difference between "proposed" and "candidate" for deletion, I think it goes over the heads of most people who might wish to contribute in good faith to developing wikifur. The proposed policy's been there quite some time; being there purely as a proposal, especially absent any real policy, just increases the already very high ambiguity over what's appropriate on wikifur. It should either be withdrawn or put in place as policy. And if it's enacted, it should apply as a general guideline, not as an arbitrarily narrow formality about the use of one precise template. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:There are no clear answers on what is appropriate or not because it depends on what the people discussing it at the time think. Obviously there are some things that are ''clearly'' inappropriate, but then almost everyone understands what they are and so they are usually not added in the first place. It's the edge cases, like here, where we have the discussions.

:As for the rationale, I think SpazKitty's reasoning was fairly clear - they think that religious categories and sexual orientation categories are not appropriate for the main namespace because they do not have much relevance, and should be restricted to the user space (by which they mean they should be something added to [[User:Furthling]] rather than [[Furthling]]). Whether they are right or not is the matter under debate.

:You argue that "religious stance is entirely pertient to understanding a person". That's fair enough, if you consider religion important. However, that comes back to whether we're trying to detail people's entire lives, or just the furry aspects of them.

:The problem we wish to avoid is ending up with huge numbers of categories that are going to be incomplete and which don't have much meaning anyway. "Christian furs" has meaning because they are a group which has defined itself through activities within the fandom. The same is true for [[:Category:Babyfurs]], [[:Category:Ham radio operators]] and the like. All of these have associated articles, because they are topics which we have something specific to say about, separate from Wikipedia's coverage.

:This category claims that atheist furs have "a distinctive outlook on the furry fandom" - so, what is that outlook? As far as I know, we don't have an [[atheist]] or [[atheist fur]] because it wouldn't say more than "a fur who is an atheist" - and perhaps that's why we shouldn't have a category for it. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see it as particularly relevant to my involvement in the fandom, so it's not on the article about me. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::It's easy to say we should distinguish between the 'furry aspects' of people's lives and the aspects that aren't, but much harder to do. Or, if it's easy, please explain how, because I'm not seeing it. You realize "Artist" for example, is not a furry trait-- it's just a trait, and can be argued, just as "christian (fur)" can, the same way you've argued atheist fur-- no brand-new-under-the-sun trait arises from a person being a furry and and artist, nor from being a furry and a christian. At the same time, all three examples are of two traits that in persons, exert strong mutual influence-- artists who are furs tend to have the one impact the other. Atheist who're furs and christians who're furs, the two traits are organically interactive in the individual. In part, this goes to the failure of wikifur to have a standard of noteworthiness-- you're essentially arguing that atheist furs-- who do exist (they even have a notable, referenceable LJ community)-- aren't noteworthy. The problem is, as you well know, Wikifur doesn't have a decent standard of what's noteworthy to use, such as Wikipedia's arbitrary but useful "published reference" standard.

::Regardless though, the wiki does, by choice, include pages on '''people'''. How you can conclude that categories that validly organize people content are somehow inappropriate, if people content itself *is* appropriate, is very unclear. It should have been realized right away that bringing people articles means bringing people categories. If categories on people don't belong in the wiki, then *other* kinds of information on people don't belong in the wiki. Categories aren't even a primary navigational tool-- they're just a form of content. Categories on people are no more obtrusive than or different from sections in people's articles. And if 'consistent practice' is what makes things stick in wikifur, people articles overwhelmingly include not-so-crucially-furry information.

::If people articles are approprite, people article categories are appropriate. If they're not, they're not. People articles information other than "this person is a furry," so they have not-strictly-related information in them. Either that information is or is not appropriate to wikifur, and if it is, it should be categorized. If it isn't it shouldn't be there. In fact, it's there, so by the 'consistent practice' test, it should be there. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Your reasoning seem better suited to arguing for the deletion of other categories, not for keeping this one. Again, in the past we ''have'' deleted stuff in which furries are active, but where their furriness has no relation to their participation (see [[Talk:Bangor Wargaming and Role Playing Society|this example]]). The simple fact is that furs do a lot of things, but that does not make these things "furry by association".
:::Wikipedia has lots of categories of people. One thing it ''doesn't'' have is a category of people with green eyes - because the fact is not considered relevant to their notability within the world. So, how is atheism relevant to the ''furry'' world? Is there atheist furry artwork? Stories of furry societies built on atheist principles? In what way has atheist culture has affected furry culture, or vice versa? Are the furs in the LiveJournal group active in spreading atheism in the fandom? If there is nothing uniting this category other than its atheism, how does an category of furry atheists which is likely to omit a large number of people who really ''are'' atheists help our readers? --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the final decision may be, I think we should apply the same decision to both the Atheist Furs category and the Christian Furs category. As George Carlin would say, "Let's not have a double standard. One standard will do nicely." :-) --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::::GR, to respond here (though I believe I did so at the time elsewhere), yes, there are quite evidently furry expressions of atheism all over the fandom. There're active communities of specifically atheist furs, there is atheist furry art, and there is a persistent interest in the atheist orientation of furries, among furries, who are disproportionately, as a community, atheist.
::::Moreover, the atheist idea is inherent in the very premise of anthropomorphism-- animals notworthily don't have religious compunctions, and in the view of theists, are not subject to salvation, heaven, or hell, etc, much as atheists view themselves to be. For many atheists, including furry ones, the anthropomorphic figure symbolizes atheism!
::::Lacking any standard whatsoever of what's appropriate and then leaping to: how other comparable categories (like christian fur) are dealt with is irrelevant, doesn't make a bit of sense. It's a perfectly natural and intuitive position to fall back on, lacking a clearer definition of "appropriate," to look at how other similar things have been done. Indeed that idea is at the core not only of wikipedia, but is the intuitively expected approach for the organization of pretty much ANYTHING organized by human thought. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Define "many atheists". Who? Specifically? And the last paragraph made no sense to me whatsoever. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::GR, why are you asking me to create a list of atheist furs for you? It's not relevant to the discussion, as it's no part of any standard used here-- you can't just keep creating more nonsense tests to be met for a category you find embarassing, or whatever, to be legitimate. Moreover, you know a number of atheist furs yourself, because you've seen them discuss things in the Atheist Furs LJ Comm.
::::::The last paragraph pertains to your previous comments. You suggested that my arguments were better suited to the view that certain categories (e.g., christian furs) should be deleted, RATHER than to the view that Atheist Furs be kept. Except the one is germane to the other. How things are done on Wikifur IS the standard of how things should be done on wikifur, especially considering the deplorable absence of policy on what's appropriate, and the persistent refusals to discuss it. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm asking you to specify people to back up your statement: "For many atheists, including furry ones, the anthropomorphic figure symbolizes atheism!" I don't know who this "many" is that you are talking about, and I'd like you to specify a reference to back it up to ensure that it is not just your personal opinion.
:::::::I agree that one is germane to the other. If there's a good argument for one to be deleted, there's a good argument for both to be deleted. That was the meaning of my statement. I want to be fair, so that if we get rid of one we should get rid of the other as well. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::::But that standard, "who" does not apply here. I suspect this confusion arises out of the idea that wikifur can operate similarly to say, wikipedia, despite having no clear standard of evidence at all, upon which such challenges would necessarily be based.
::::::::It is evident that animals don't have religion or religious compunctions and observances. It is also evident that they do not, according to conventional religions, experience afterlife, similar to the outlook of atheists about themselves. It is also evident that features of animals with which fur fans identify is much of the basis of the furry fandom. My observation about the significance of anthropomorphic animals to atheists is self-evident, regardless of how often it becomes a big talking point among furs (and as a matter of fact atheism and furriness are notoriously synergistic topics for discussion among furs). For that matter, I've observed it, and I'm a furry and an atheist, and there need be no further evidence about the relevance of this view, as wikifur does not, pretend though it might, have a notability standard. Furthermore, the closest wikifur could come to a notability standard would necessarily discriminate against unpopular and minority groups, e.g., atheists.-[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

== No Resolution? ==

The recent reinclusion of the "appropriate" template and deletion category was inappropriate; there isn't anything to resolve, and readding it was contrary to wiki guidelines. If the person who made the edit felt there was a reason for it, he would make a positive case for it here RATHER than using inappropriate templates to "encourage discussion." Because I don't want to further this edit war, I have taken the opportunity to solicit feedback from any interested parties in the AtheistFurs LJ community. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-11-28T21:51:52Z

Furthling:

I think this category would be best as a userspace category. Christian furs, too. If we start allowing religious categories in the main article space, would we then start allowing sexual orientation categories as well? [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]] 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[[:Category:Christian furs]] came about largely because of a list of people in the article [[Christian fur]]. Categories seem tidier and somewhat more useful than lists of people, to me, and main-space categories for articles contain people who are not WikiFur users. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 04:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I don't have an opinion because I don't know the details of a particular convention, I don't know the difference; wikifur presents a pretty novel situation in that there are pages about individuals, but it's not, you know, LJ or myspace. If there's an argument in favor of expanding categories on individuals, it probably starts there. Sex-orientation categories? It's a pretty germane category on individuals, especially given the charcter of the fandom. But obviously also problematic. E.g., a "closeted gay" category. Wouldn't that be charming. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

===Re:<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>===
I'm not clear why this article has been tagged for <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>, when, one, it's stood without comment for quite some time, when the equivalent category pertaining to christians, is not so-tagged, and since nobody will be able to respond to the next request I'll now make:

Could somebody please point to a coherent wikifur policy describing what makes categories inappropriate to wikifur?

Obviously a category is content, but it's not an article. As religions and the furry fandom all pertain to the realm of imaginary things, they're inextricably interwoven, and religious stances are of inherent interest both in works (see pholph.com for example), and of people.

Arguably Wikifur should have a standard of noteworthiness that would leave 90% of all personal pages on Wikifur marked <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> and candidates for deletion. Short of doing that, however, it is inclusive of people '''as such''', and religious stance is entirely pertient to understanding a person, in addition to understanding the nuances of the fandom.

The appropriate and deletion categories should be removed. Contrary to the edit comments the category specifically refers to a distinctive outlook, and accusing it of not being a distinctive outlook begs two questions: one, how is it not so if one acknowledges (as I do) that Christian Furs, is, and two, where are the specs on what is "sufficiently distinctive?" This sounds more like an effort to excise unpopular points of view. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:The length of time an item has existed on WikiFur is irrelevant, and discussion can be begun or continued at any time; see the top of this talk page for some unresolved points about this category.

:There is a tendancy on WikiFur to write up policy once a consistent practice has come about, rather than writing policy in order to bring about a consistent practice. There has been discussion of various categories on the talk pages for those categories, or on wider categories in some cases.

:Categories serve as a way of organising information. Suggesting that this category is not useful is not the same as suggesting that information pointed at by the category should be excised from WikiFur.

:I hope the above has helped your understanding somewhat, and that others will add to discussion here. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::If you review what you've just written, I trust you'll see there's an inconsistency between saying that the length of time an item has existed without comment is 'irrelevant' and saying that 'consistent practice' is the norm for formulating policy-- it has been a consistent practice of WikiFur to include this particular category as a way of categorizing person pages-- even after its appropriateness was raised and ample time allowed for discussion of its appropriateness.

::I'm not sure I entirely agree that convention alone establishes good policy-- at it's basest, convention has led to the disorganization of information that the wide world typifies, and which I think everyone expects a Wiki to improve upon.

::But if you think convention should drive policy, how then can you feel that using <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> is warranted in this case? Convention already includes other categories of '''precisely''' this sort, and person pages are a large part of Wikifur, and the categories that are completely appropriate to them, as such, cover all sorts of things just like this.

::Also, in fact, the function of a category is itself to provide information-- information about where items that are members of the category can be found. To suggest the category be removed is very much to suggest removing information. And the question is not of what's "useful" but of what's "appropriate," which at present, with the template used here to express it, literally marks the category for deletion. The template directly proposes eliminating specific information very much germane to furs and identity as a fur. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the template at this time. It contains proposal for deletion, and so falls under [[Wikifur:Proposed_deletion#conflicts|Proposal for deletion, sub 'Conflicts']]. I trust this expresses WikiFur's policy and the view common to wikis that where there is a disagreement about deletion of content, the assumption is not to delete. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

==<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>==

I'd like to hear from whomever thinks the appropriate tag belongs on the page as to why articles (or categories, in this case) are considered appropriate or inappropriate, in general. If there's no clear rationale for adding such a tag to a page, I'm a little confused why anyone would in fact add it. And I've asked before where the standard of article appropriateness can be found, but don't recall any clear answers. Incidentally, at this time the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> template redirects to the <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> template. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

:Also, per this policy:

:'''Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, explain why on the article Talk page. '''

:It really was inappropriate to re-add the tag, since it contains the proposal for deletion. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

::No it wasn't. That ''proposed'' policy applies strictly to the {{tl|prod}} template, which I have never actually seen used on WikiFur. Moreover, what normally happens on Wikipedia if you remove that is a full-blown deletion - and ''that'' template is not removable until the discussion is concluded. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Does Wikifur have an actual policy on this that the proposed policy seeks to replace, then? Does it have a broad body of other actual policies? If "no" to either or both, there's simply a lack of policy, isn't there? Into which problematic vacuum the proposed policy is inevitably drawn?

:::Meanwhile, the <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> tag includes candidate for deletion, and if there's some sort of crucial difference between "proposed" and "candidate" for deletion, I think it goes over the heads of most people who might wish to contribute in good faith to developing wikifur. The proposed policy's been there quite some time; being there purely as a proposal, especially absent any real policy, just increases the already very high ambiguity over what's appropriate on wikifur. It should either be withdrawn or put in place as policy. And if it's enacted, it should apply as a general guideline, not as an arbitrarily narrow formality about the use of one precise template. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:There are no clear answers on what is appropriate or not because it depends on what the people discussing it at the time think. Obviously there are some things that are ''clearly'' inappropriate, but then almost everyone understands what they are and so they are usually not added in the first place. It's the edge cases, like here, where we have the discussions.

:As for the rationale, I think SpazKitty's reasoning was fairly clear - they think that religious categories and sexual orientation categories are not appropriate for the main namespace because they do not have much relevance, and should be restricted to the user space (by which they mean they should be something added to [[User:Furthling]] rather than [[Furthling]]). Whether they are right or not is the matter under debate.

:You argue that "religious stance is entirely pertient to understanding a person". That's fair enough, if you consider religion important. However, that comes back to whether we're trying to detail people's entire lives, or just the furry aspects of them.

:The problem we wish to avoid is ending up with huge numbers of categories that are going to be incomplete and which don't have much meaning anyway. "Christian furs" has meaning because they are a group which has defined itself through activities within the fandom. The same is true for [[:Category:Babyfurs]], [[:Category:Ham radio operators]] and the like. All of these have associated articles, because they are topics which we have something specific to say about, separate from Wikipedia's coverage.

:This category claims that atheist furs have "a distinctive outlook on the furry fandom" - so, what is that outlook? As far as I know, we don't have an [[atheist]] or [[atheist fur]] because it wouldn't say more than "a fur who is an atheist" - and perhaps that's why we shouldn't have a category for it. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see it as particularly relevant to my involvement in the fandom, so it's not on the article about me. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::It's easy to say we should distinguish between the 'furry aspects' of people's lives and the aspects that aren't, but much harder to do. Or, if it's easy, please explain how, because I'm not seeing it. You realize "Artist" for example, is not a furry trait-- it's just a trait, and can be argued, just as "christian (fur)" can, the same way you've argued atheist fur-- no brand-new-under-the-sun trait arises from a person being a furry and and artist, nor from being a furry and a christian. At the same time, all three examples are of two traits that in persons, exert strong mutual influence-- artists who are furs tend to have the one impact the other. Atheist who're furs and christians who're furs, the two traits are organically interactive in the individual. In part, this goes to the failure of wikifur to have a standard of noteworthiness-- you're essentially arguing that atheist furs-- who do exist (they even have a notable, referenceable LJ community)-- aren't noteworthy. The problem is, as you well know, Wikifur doesn't have a decent standard of what's noteworthy to use, such as Wikipedia's arbitrary but useful "published reference" standard.

::Regardless though, the wiki does, by choice, include pages on '''people'''. How you can conclude that categories that validly organize people content are somehow inappropriate, if people content itself *is* appropriate, is very unclear. It should have been realized right away that bringing people articles means bringing people categories. If categories on people don't belong in the wiki, then *other* kinds of information on people don't belong in the wiki. Categories aren't even a primary navigational tool-- they're just a form of content. Categories on people are no more obtrusive than or different from sections in people's articles. And if 'consistent practice' is what makes things stick in wikifur, people articles overwhelmingly include not-so-crucially-furry information.

::If people articles are approprite, people article categories are appropriate. If they're not, they're not. People articles information other than "this person is a furry," so they have not-strictly-related information in them. Either that information is or is not appropriate to wikifur, and if it is, it should be categorized. If it isn't it shouldn't be there. In fact, it's there, so by the 'consistent practice' test, it should be there. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Your reasoning seem better suited to arguing for the deletion of other categories, not for keeping this one. Again, in the past we ''have'' deleted stuff in which furries are active, but where their furriness has no relation to their participation (see [[Talk:Bangor Wargaming and Role Playing Society|this example]]). The simple fact is that furs do a lot of things, but that does not make these things "furry by association".
:::Wikipedia has lots of categories of people. One thing it ''doesn't'' have is a category of people with green eyes - because the fact is not considered relevant to their notability within the world. So, how is atheism relevant to the ''furry'' world? Is there atheist furry artwork? Stories of furry societies built on atheist principles? In what way has atheist culture has affected furry culture, or vice versa? Are the furs in the LiveJournal group active in spreading atheism in the fandom? If there is nothing uniting this category other than its atheism, how does an category of furry atheists which is likely to omit a large number of people who really ''are'' atheists help our readers? --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the final decision may be, I think we should apply the same decision to both the Atheist Furs category and the Christian Furs category. As George Carlin would say, "Let's not have a double standard. One standard will do nicely." :-) --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::::GR, to respond here (though I believe I did so at the time elsewhere), yes, there are quite evidently furry expressions of atheism all over the fandom. There're active communities of specifically atheist furs, there is atheist furry art, and there is a persistent interest in the atheist orientation of furries, among furries, who are disproportionately, as a community, atheist.
::::Moreover, the atheist idea is inherent in the very premise of anthropomorphism-- animals notworthily don't have religious compunctions, and in the view of theists, are not subject to salvation, heaven, or hell, etc, much as atheists view themselves to be. For many atheists, including furry ones, the anthropomorphic figure symbolizes atheism!
::::Lacking any standard whatsoever of what's appropriate and then leaping to: how other comparable categories (like christian fur) are dealt with is irrelevant, doesn't make a bit of sense. It's a perfectly natural and intuitive position to fall back on, lacking a clearer definition of "appropriate," to look at how other similar things have been done. Indeed that idea is at the core not only of wikipedia, but is the intuitively expected approach for the organization of pretty much ANYTHING organized by human thought. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Define "many atheists". Who? Specifically? And the last paragraph made no sense to me whatsoever. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::GR, why are you asking me to create a list of atheist furs for you? It's not relevant to the discussion, as it's no part of any standard used here-- you can't just keep creating more nonsense tests to be met for a category you find embarassing, or whatever, to be legitimate. Moreover, you know a number of atheist furs yourself, because you've seen them discuss things in the Atheist Furs LJ Comm.
::::::The last paragraph pertains to your previous comments. You suggested that my arguments were better suited to the view that certain categories (e.g., christian furs) should be deleted, RATHER than to the view that Atheist Furs be kept. Except the one is germane to the other. How things are done on Wikifur IS the standard of how things should be done on wikifur, especially considering the deplorable absence of policy on what's appropriate, and the persistent refusals to discuss it. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

== No Resolution? ==

The recent reinclusion of the "appropriate" template and deletion category was inappropriate; there isn't anything to resolve, and readding it was contrary to wiki guidelines. If the person who made the edit felt there was a reason for it, he would make a positive case for it here RATHER than using inappropriate templates to "encourage discussion." Because I don't want to further this edit war, I have taken the opportunity to solicit feedback from any interested parties in the AtheistFurs LJ community. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-11-28T21:36:36Z

Furthling: /* {{appropriate}} */

Bestiality

2008-11-28T21:25:38Z

Furthling: Undo revision 226805 by 71.103.70.92 (talk)

Bestiality is an act involving human-animal sexual relations, one of the key interests of [[zoophilia|zoophiles]]. It is considered particularly odious in the furry community, where animals are generally held in high regard.

The prevalence of bestiality (and indeed zoophilia) in the furry community and art of the fandom is a controversial topic among furries and their critics. A study of mostly United States furry convention attendees back in 1999-2000 listed practicing zoophiles at about 2% of those surveyed, but doesn't appear to differentiate between zoophiles and bestialists.<ref>''[http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html The Sociology of Furry Fandom]'', [[David J. Rust]], 2000-2003</ref>

Various jurisdictions in many countries have laws on the books to prohibit bestiality, either explicitly as in a [[Wikipedia:Washington state|Washington, USA]] law<ref>[http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6417 Washington 2006 Senate Bill 6417 (Prohibiting bestiality)], passed 24 March 2006</ref>, or implicitly as part of existing [[Wikipedia:Animal abuse|animal abuse]] or [[Wikipedia:Sodomy|sodomy]] laws.

==References==
<references />

== See also ==

* [[Wikipedia:Bestiality|Bestiality]] at Wikipedia

[[Category: Paraphilias]]
[[Category: Mature terms]]

Talk:Bestiality

2008-11-28T21:25:10Z

Furthling: /* Key Interest of Zoophiles: Bestiality */

==Gomen Nasai==
Grrr. Sorry if my edit was not appropriate. Some troll vandalized the Furry Fandom page on Wikipedia by linking to this article. I didn't notice I had been taken off site. Please revert if you really want to have the page like that. But I really hope you don't. [[User:Perri Rhoades|Perri Rhoades]] 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure. Is it not true? If it is true, then we should probably say it, as it is relevant to the page. WikiFur isn't about whitewashing the fandom, after all. It could perhaps do with qualification of exactly how ''much'' of a minority it is, or give examples of prominent people (such as [[Manawolf]]) who advocate it as a practice. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::More specifically, who advocate that it is not in and of itself an immoral activity. [http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm] --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::This line has popped up again...is it or is it not a 'minority'? [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]]

:::The only statistics we have to go by put it at 2% of the fandom.[[User:Perri Rhoades|Perri Rhoades]] 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the survey link. Clears things up. [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]]

::There's no way to really tell, though I would imagine the statistics are similar to that of society in general. That survey link, while interesting, is very outdated, and not geographically diverse. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

== pretty decent revision ==

Reorganized a lot. Removed things that were redundant, more applicable to (and occasionally present in) [[Zoophilia]]... reduced the slang usage, explained the origin of the slang use, pointed out the limitations of the survey... it's a bit more encyclopedic and relevant. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fail. ==

This new edit just ignores large chunks of what was already there and re-introduces the slang as something "furry." It also contains a number of pro-zoo assertions: "It is often incorrectly seen as a synonym for [[zoophilia]], but this is not the case," "On occasion, those engaging in sex with animals without a specific emotional attraction towards them are called bestialists, or beasties for short, within the zoophile and furry community." This hinges on only one definition of zoophilia as well: "Bestiality does not suggest a motive for why the person engages in the sexual act, this may be the result of a sexual attraction towards that animal, in which case it would be the result of zoophilia, but that needn't be so." It also focuses on zoophilia, which I tried to make secondary in my revision by where I split my paragraphs. This revision fails, and I'm reverting it. If anonymous wants to put in pro-zoo stuff, I challenge him to remove the slang, assertions, et cetera. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps look up certain things and you'd discover that bestiality is not a paraphilia, your wording is incorrect and misleading. It's the act and nothing more, though zoos tend to associate it with negative intentions on the human's side. [[User:213.222.158.152|213.222.158.152]] 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::So blind me with science. But be aware that this page isn't a place for the propaganda, like in Zoophilia talk. If "zoos" tend to do it, differentiate between traditional zoophiles (like Jane Goodal) and then zoos that support human-animal sexual contact, and THEN go into the DSM stuff with citations. Maybe in the Zoophiles article, even. I was just stepping on eggshells but being lazy about it. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Also, you should avoid speaking for the fandom as though your community IS the fandom, because it clearly isn't. The "beastie" slang bit was the reason I cleaned up the article in the first place. I find it highly unlikely most furries would even be involved with people who support human-animal sex to the point that said slang would be common use. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Key Interest of Zoophiles: Bestiality ==

It's important to make clear that there are additional terms by which bestiality and interest therein is known: zoophiles/zoophilia is very much that, in the conventional usages of the fandom and in conventional english. The efforts of bestialists to hide their interests behind obfuscatory langauge borrowed from technical language in psychology and misused here, is not a good rationale for removing vital contextual information from the article.

Hiding information, which was the evident rationale for the latest edit, is contrary to wiki norms. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
:And, to be clear, I am undoing the edit. -[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bestiality

2008-11-28T21:24:16Z

Furthling:

Talk:Steppenwolf

2008-09-17T22:32:01Z

Furthling:

This doesn't seem particularly furry to me. The wolf is just an apparation representing something? -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:Judging by what the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppenwolf_(novel) wikipedia] article says about the book... While it does have a sort of therian-like sound to it, I agree that perhaps it's not notable enough to be documented here. --'''[[Banrai|Banrai]]''' | [[User_talk:Banrai|talk]] (06/07/07) 21.26 (UTC)
::The wolf is a consistent motif through the book, and makes specific appearances as a wolf (though much of what takes place in the book is only dubiously physically taking place). The novels category is, as the category page states, for novels ''of relevance to the furry fandom,'' not simply for literary works that are mainstream furry in the modern fandom sense, much as with wikifur as a whole, as I understand it --[[Furthling]]

Forgot that the rollback function doesn't allow leaving a edit summary / comment as using the edit tab does; sorry about that. I've restored the appropriate template, which is used by regular editors, and thus flagged this article as one to be further discussed. Any discussion about the general wording or use of a template can more appropriately go on the talk page of the template, or in the Forum. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. And use of that template has no coherent much less legitimate basis in policy, and does not belong on any article until it does. (EDIT: in it's present form, I mean.) --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Steppenwolf

2008-09-17T22:30:55Z

Furthling:

This doesn't seem particularly furry to me. The wolf is just an apparation representing something? -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:Judging by what the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppenwolf_(novel) wikipedia] article says about the book... While it does have a sort of therian-like sound to it, I agree that perhaps it's not notable enough to be documented here. --'''[[Banrai|Banrai]]''' | [[User_talk:Banrai|talk]] (06/07/07) 21.26 (UTC)
::The wolf is a consistent motif through the book, and makes specific appearances as a wolf (though much of what takes place in the book is only dubiously physically taking place). The novels category is, as the category page states, for novels ''of relevance to the furry fandom,'' not simply for literary works that are mainstream furry in the modern fandom sense, much as with wikifur as a whole, as I understand it --[[Furthling]]

Forgot that the rollback function doesn't allow leaving a edit summary / comment as using the edit tab does; sorry about that. I've restored the appropriate template, which is used by regular editors, and thus flagged this article as one to be further discussed. Any discussion about the general wording or use of a template can more appropriately go on the talk page of the template, or in the Forum. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. And use of that template has no coherent much less legitimate basis in policy, and does not belong on any article until it does. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Furthling

2008-08-12T06:16:04Z

Furthling:

Furthling is an Ohioan furry who writes sloppy anthrpomorphic fiction and javascript furry code encoder/decoder toys.

{{ContributorU}}
 
<div style="float:left">{{User LiveJournal name|Furthling}}

{{Template:User deviantART name|Furthling}}</div>

User:Furthling

2008-06-03T05:44:42Z

Furthling:

Fursecution

2008-05-01T02:38:39Z

Furthling:

'''Fursecution''' is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau portmanteau] word coined in the late 1990s that has come to mean the perceived [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution per'''secution'''] of [[furries|'''fur'''ies]] by elements outside the fandom, and often derisively, to suggest overreaction to criticism.

==Fursecution's meaning==
A greatly debated subject, with some claiming it to be a legitimate form of discrimination, while others find it a severe overreaction, this term may have originated from the mockery generated by sites like [[Something Awful]], which is often targeted at the [[furry fandom]]. The primary reason for these disagreements is the fact that the term is applied to situations both serious and trivial, predominantly the latter.

It has been suggested<ref>[http://xydexx.livejournal.com/583464.html?thread=4333352#t4333352 Xydexx's suggestion about the origin of the word]</ref> that this word was conceived by members of [[Crush Yiff Destroy]], but use of the term was documented in [[Usenet]] posts as far back as 1998<ref>[http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.dylan/browse_frm/thread/5569b2c96e682e0/11bffd743b8334d1?lnk=st&q=&rnum=15&hl=en#11bffd743b8334d1 Earliest known use of the word in a Usenet post dated Oct 26, 1998]</ref>.

==Term "validity"==
It can be argued that a large amount of the perceived "fursecution" could be due to certain people's oversensitivity to criticism about the furry fandom (such as claims that many furries are homosexual or bisexual, or furs are in just for the sexual aspects of the culture.) [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], which pokes fun at various internet phenomena, especially furries, says, "Furries suffer from an acute victim complex. This makes them very easy to torment."

In other words, while any group that is at least relatively well-known will inevitably draw criticism or mockery, the (oversensitive) reaction (or overreaction) by some individuals to such attacks is what they would claim qualifies as being "Fursecuted."

==Anti-furry "fursecution"==

By 2005, anti-furry groups or people had added alternative meanings to the word:

* Either as it being one signifying an actual "attack" by anti-furry elements on a furry person, group or site for the sole purpose to, hopefully, generate furry [[drama]].

* Or, as a mocking term towards a furry person, group or site when a situation or event is unfavorable or detrimental towards them. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_June_5&diff=136209598&oldid=136209578 A call to delete a furry category on [[Wikipedia]] is mocked by a Encyclopedia Dramatica editor ("Fursecution!!!111")]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Stereotype]]
*[[Schadenfreude]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.livejournal.com/community/fursecution/ the Fursecution community], an [[anti-furry]] [[LiveJournal]].

[[Category: Terms]]

Category talk:Births by year

2008-05-01T02:21:44Z

Furthling: Created page with 'It occurs to me that this data constitutes a fairly interesting measure: Wikifur-noteworthy births, by year. It's fairly easy to harvest, too, and makes an entertaining graph, if...'

It occurs to me that this data constitutes a fairly interesting measure: Wikifur-noteworthy births, by year. It's fairly easy to harvest, too, and makes an entertaining graph, if anybody thought such would be worth uploading. The data as I plucked it, 1944-2008:

1944 2
1945 3
1946 1
1947 2
1948 2
1949 3
1950 10
1951 1
1952 3
1953 2
1954 3
1955 5
1956 7
1957 4
1958 6
1959 4
1960 12
1961 11
1962 8
1963 8
1964 12
1965 18
1966 12
1967 11
1968 15
1969 20
1970 30
1971 19
1972 26
1973 23
1974 24
1975 27
1976 35
1977 39
1978 51
1979 45
1980 66
1981 91
1982 103
1983 118
1984 112
1985 152
1986 139
1987 109
1988 119
1989 96
1990 42
1991 45
1992 26
1993 28
1994 30
1995 40
1996 54
1997 62
1998 75
1999 80
2000 64
2001 74
2002 68
2003 86
2004 75
2005 112
2006 138
2007 75
2008 13

Unfortunately it'd go reasonably quickly out of date. It's also perhaps a little self-referential. Still, sorta interesting. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-05-01T01:04:30Z

Furthling: /* {{appropriate}} */

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-05-01T00:44:29Z

Furthling: /* {{appropriate}} */

Furthling

2008-04-26T00:33:53Z

Furthling:

'''Furthling''' (born 1970) is an [[wikipedia:atheist|atheist]] [[furry]] who lives in central [[Wikipedia:Ohio|Ohio]], United States. His [[fursona]] is a [[polar bear]]. He has been a conscious member of the fandom since late 2001, but has been roleplaying [[anthropomorphic]] characters online since the early 90s.

==Interests==
Furthling is a [[writer]] of [[anthropomorphic]] fiction and poetry, and an avid online and tabletop role player with a particularly keen interest in designing worlds and settings for role play. He's also an enthusiastic, self-taught student of cognitive science and comparative mythology and religion.

==External links==
{{Contributor}}
* [http://furthling.deviantart.com/ Furthling] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://furthling.livejournal.com/ Furthling] on [[livejournal]]
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/furthling/ Furthling] on [[Fur Affinity]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Writers]]
[[Category:Programmers]]
[[category:Atheist furs]]
[[Category:Polar Bear characters]]
[[Category:Ohio]]
[[Category:1970 births]]

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-04-26T00:27:23Z

Furthling: /* {{appropriate}} */

Category talk:Atheist furs

2008-04-26T00:21:10Z

Furthling:

Zoophilia

2008-03-27T15:27:15Z

Furthling: grammatical error

{{unreferenced}}
[[Image:Zetapin.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Zeta pin, used in public by some zoophiles]]
'''Zoophilia''' is technical term for sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals. It has been increasingly used in popular and furry culture as an alternative to the term bestiality, because it stresses orientation over acts, and is usually regarded as less prejudicial. (For more information on the context and use of the techical term, see: [[Wikipedia:paraphilia|paraphilia]].)

It is common misconception that [[furries]] are lovers of animals, and (by extension) zoophiles. It is true that a significant proportion of erotic furry artwork and stories involve beings with animal characteristics having sex with each other, or with humans, but it should be noted that the participants are usually [[anthropomorphic]] beings. While some furries are zoophiles, the two terms are not synonymous. Most furries do not have any sexual interest in animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in a fantasy scenario.

==Self-Identified Zoophiles versus bestiality==
Most people who identify themselves as zoophiles distinguish between zoophilia and [[bestiality]]. Though some zoophiles choose to engage in sexual contact with their animal companions, not all do. Zoophiles state that they are lovers of animals, and that sexual contact, when it is done, is an extension of a deeper emotional and perhaps spiritual relationship with the animal, similar in character to the sexual expression between human companions. They sometimes refer to those who have sexual contact with animals without emotional bonds as "beasties," or, more often, "rapists." Zoophiles may draw attention to the distinction between bestiality (an act), and Zoophilia (a sexuality), and to the view that those who have sexual contact with animals without an emotional connection are not zoophiles.

Some self-identified zoophiles also use the term to refer to anyone with the kind of emotional bonds they stress as distinguishing them from bestialists, including those who have no sexual contact with or interest in animals.

==ZooWiki==
[[Image:ZooWiki.png|right|ZooWiki]]
'''ZooWiki''' is a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It notable topics, events and in its subject area. ZooWiki's policies specify that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wolfie (Germany)|Wolfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as literature, authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Zetacon]]

== External links ==
* [http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ ZooWiki] ([http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php%3Ftitle%3DHauptseite&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://zoowiki.zetapin.de/%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff translation])
* ''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.bestiality/browse_frm/thread/b26e8acbd087f127 Zoophilia and Your Health]'' (posted on [[alt.sex.bestiality]])
* [http://mwillett.org/mind/animal-sex.htm Is Sex With Animals Always Wrong?]
* [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ The New Mexico Humane Society on zoophilia]

[[Category:Paraphilias]]

Zoophilia

2008-03-27T15:24:36Z

Furthling: /* Self-Identified Zoophiles versus bestiality */

{{unreferenced}}
[[Image:Zetapin.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Zeta pin, used in public by some zoophiles]]
'''Zoophilia''' is technical term for sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals. It has been increasingly used in popular and furry culture as an alternative to the term bestiality, because it stresses orientation over acts, and is usually regarded as less prejudicial. (For more information on the context and use of the techical term, see: [[Wikipedia:paraphilia|paraphilia]].)

It is common misconception that [[furries]] are lovers of animals, and (by extension) zoophiles. It is true that a significant proportion of erotic furry artwork and stories involve beings with animal characteristics having sex with each other, or with humans, but it should be noted that the participants are usually [[anthropomorphic]] beings. While some furries are zoophiles, the two terms are not synonymous. Most furries do not have any sexual interest in animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in a fantasy scenario.

==Self-Identified Zoophiles versus bestiality==
Most people who identify themselves as zoophiles distinguish between zoophilia and [[bestiality]]. Though some zoophiles choose to engage in sexual contact with their animal companions, not all do. Zoophiles state that they are lovers of animals, and that sexual contact, when it is done, is an extension of a deeper emotional and perhaps spiritual relationship with the animal, similar in character to the sexual expression between human companions. They sometimes refer to those who do not have sexual contact with animals without emotional bonds as "beasties," or, more often, "rapists." Zoophiles may draw attention to the distinction between bestiality (an act), and Zoophilia (a sexuality), and to the view that those who have sexual contact with animals without an emotional connection are not zoophiles.

Some self-identified zoophiles also use the term to refer to anyone with the kind of emotional bonds they stress as distinguishing them from bestialists, including those who have no sexual contact with or interest in animals.

==ZooWiki==
[[Image:ZooWiki.png|right|ZooWiki]]
'''ZooWiki''' is a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It notable topics, events and in its subject area. ZooWiki's policies specify that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wolfie (Germany)|Wolfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as literature, authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Zetacon]]

== External links ==
* [http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ ZooWiki] ([http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php%3Ftitle%3DHauptseite&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://zoowiki.zetapin.de/%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff translation])
* ''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.bestiality/browse_frm/thread/b26e8acbd087f127 Zoophilia and Your Health]'' (posted on [[alt.sex.bestiality]])
* [http://mwillett.org/mind/animal-sex.htm Is Sex With Animals Always Wrong?]
* [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ The New Mexico Humane Society on zoophilia]

[[Category:Paraphilias]]

Talk:Zoophilia

2008-03-27T15:21:00Z

Furthling: /* WRONG!!! */

== But what of the fandom? ==

Is there not also a significant portion of furries that ''are'' into bestiality? Throw a rock at a furry convention, and I think probably a third of the time, you'd hit a (most likely closet) zoophile.

I'm not saying this to defame. I'm simply saying this from my experience with others within the fandom that seem to share this fetish-- if you can call it that, as some have taken it to heights of "I CAN ONLY LOVE ANIMALS BECAUSE HUMANS DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!!!". [[User:Verix|Verix]] 04:07, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:So now we know who the Mystery Rock-Thrower of AnthroCon '02 was! ;-)

:I don't fully understand those people that you describe, either. But then I've not had the experience of meeting many such people myself. Maybe I should go to more conventions!

:I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "closet" - do you mean you're aware that they have sex with animals but don't tell people about it, or do you just suspect it, or do you just think they ''want'' to have sex with animals, or would if they got the chance? --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 06:15, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::Hate to break it to you, but your parents had sex with animals. Homo sapiens are a species of the animal kingdom, last time I checked. --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 11:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::Haha, someone threw a rock at AC '02? My first AC was '05, so that wasn't me. ;>

::And like with most anything embarassing or reprimanded by the majority comes the idea of "being in the closet" about something. Hence, since so many furries believe that zoophilia has nothing to do with funny animals-- myself included-- and will fight against any accusations and claims, one would assume that to come out like this , they would be reprimanded. Of course, this is assuming that our embarassed fellow is still "in the closet" about this, and not raving from the tops of his lungs about how HE LOVES MARES HOORAY HOORAY.

::So when I say they're in the closet, I don't mean that I believe that I the all-knowing, all-seeing, goose-stepping master of that who can understand a zoophile from miles, miles, miles away-- no. I'm just basing this off of how many people have personally come out to me and said "hey you know I'm into this k." But then again, maybe I attract those kind of people, so my opinion is biased? I dunno. The immense amount of people in #zoo on FurNet ''somewhat'' backs up my opinions, but not by much. From the popularity of that channel, and both reflecting a little bit more, I'll back down and say that probably less than a third of people are into it. Hell, it's probably about as popular as fursuit sex-- which is more popular than most people think. [[User:Verix|Verix]] 06:36, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::Fursuit sex is probably limited by lack of materials. That plush fur doesn't come cheap, you know! --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 06:42, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::That hasn't stopped many from buying cheap materials. ;) [[User:Verix|Verix]] 06:47, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

== WikiFur the right place for the zoo morality discussions? ==

I was going to add some simple conterpoints to the pro-zoo arguments here, but then I realized that additional sides of the morality argument would immediately be added, eventually turning this article into a duplicate of the one on Wikipedia. I'm not certain if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but if it's a good, then the article at the very least needs additional structure. If it's bad (which is how I feel due to redundancy and less information overall), then I think removing the moral arguments altogether would be wise and keeping the focus of the article restricted to the involvement with the furry fandom. In otherwords, if folks want to find out a wealth of information on the pros and cons of zoophilia, they can go to the Wikipedia link in the Exteral Links section. If they want to see how it relates to the fandom, they can read this article. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because for a change, I'm not trolling the zoos. ;-) Also, lollin' at how some of my troll threads (I recognize those quotes) somehow made it to the definition. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get is why zoophiles who have sex with animals make a distinction between themselves and beastlialists. Beastiality is beastiality - which is to say, sex with animals. No matter if someone claims to have some bullshit "spiritual fulfillment" you're still fucking an animal. It's like NAMBLA claiming they aren't child molestors, but child "lovers." {{unsigned|68.5.45.126}}
::There's a link in the original Wikipedia Zoophilia article Related Links about some intellectual/researcher who coined the term to distinguish and elevate that supposedly more moral form of animal abuse you speak of above normal animal abuse. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. However, as the person above you noted, it is probably a bad idea to start the morality argument here. As much as you might think you have original thoughts on the matter, I'm quite sure this argument has been hashed out before, repeatedly. This being the internet, it is probably archived in multiple locations for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
::Well, it's not on the article. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I would suggest linking to a (good, rational; not a contentless flamewar) debate archive somewhere...if such a thing exists. Point being there's no reason to rehash it here. [[User:Simba B|Simba B]] 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:The NAMBLA bit is a [[wikipedia:Straw man|straw man]] (as NAMBLA tends to be in most debate). I hope you realize that. [[User:Simba B|Simba B]] 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm curious why you think that particular comparison is a strawman. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Mainly because children != animals...not to get too deep into the debate, but a) NAMBLA has about the same use in a debate as "God kills a kitten when you do X", e.g. it's more emotion than rational thought and arguement, and b) the research you mentioned above...don't know the details but it's possible that the argument that it is _not_ abuse could be made.
::::Assuming the pejorative overrides the value of the comparison. Given that the topic is sexual contact with animals, I don't think that Godwin-esque logic quite applies. Anyway, to keep it short, I have yet to hear a rational argument that animals can give informed consent any more than children. If the comparison is invalid, [[User_Talk:Leam|I would most certainly want to know]] (link to my talk page). [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I should point out that I myself have no interest in this personally but I dislike seeing people demonized because of their interests or personality. Standing up for those who might be afraid/ashamed to do so, if you will. [[User:Simba B|Simba B]] 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Essay link ==
I hope this is all right - I know there are many essays out there dealing with pro/anti stances on zoophilia, but I've never heard/seen of the argument put forth in the essay I added as a link (is zoophilia any worse than eating animals?). What are others' opinions on linking zoophilia essays (of both POVs): is there such a thing as too many links? [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]] 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:See above; the pro needs a con. I support the link if I can put the link to [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ New Mexico Humane Society's stance on Zoophilia] there as well. ;-) [[User:Leam|Leam]] 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Screw them, you can't judge based on popular wisdom, you have to '''know''' what you're talking about. Not all zoophiles are abusers. One must know the meaning of "consent" and "abuse". Try http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm and read it fully, you should get a better idea of judging :). I'm not ashamed of who I am, neither would I hurt an animal or do against their will, I hope you can come to understand this. [[User:213.222.158.152|213.222.158.152]] 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, said popular wisdom is formed by a near-unanimous consensus by vets, zoologists, biologists, researchers, ethicists, politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals who form said opinion based on their professional education, experience, logic, and empirical observation. If you're trying to redefine consent and abuse while ignoring all that, don't be surprised when the Humane Society fursecutes you when your justification is an argument of assertion backed up by flimsy philosophy. If you'd like to talk more about this, feel free to leave a message in my user talk. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Doubt it's worth it, you seem like you can't be convinced. Anyways, a group of snazzy smartypants won't tell me what's right and what's wrong when my common sense seems to be the one that's right. If I don't hurt, restrain or otherwise act against an animal, they can't damn say I'm an abuser. Or, if I would, say, let them mount me, then the above is even more true. I extended my range of relationships beyond my species, that's all. Don't try to tell me I abuse anyone when people out there beat their wives, children, or who knows what else they do, and I'm taking good care of animals. I don't even eat meat, if you also plan to strike diet-wise. :) I care for my peer's wellbeing and feelings more than people do in today's usual relationships, and "important people" label it as abusing. Hmpf- [[User:213.222.158.152|213.222.158.152]] 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::You're entitled to your opinion, but just don't break any local laws and don't expect anti-intellectualism to be very persuasive. :3 [[User:Leam|Leam]] 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== But what is it? ==
I can't help but notice that the definition of zoophilia never clearly states what it is, or how the term is used within furry. This makes the moral arguments rather moot. The ALF FAQ (remember this was written, in part, by furs who call themselves zoo) gives this definition:
<blockquote>
Within furrydom zoophilia simply means a love of animals, and
a zoophile is someone who loves animals. It's probably best to apply
the same principle we used for toonophiles: a zoophile feels for
non-humans in the same way that humans generally feel for each other.
Zoophilia can mean sexual attraction, but one shouldn't assume that is
the case if someone tells you 'I'm a zoo'. Many furries are zoos in
the non-sexual sense of the word. Some furries are also sexual
zoophiles.
</blockquote>
I suggest that the opening paragraph be changed to reflect this and that within furry the statement "zoophilia is a paraphilia" is false (within clinical diagnosis it is true).
[[User:Dingotush|Dingotush]] 09:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

:Here's where it gets tricky. I agree with most everything you say, but in the context of the furry fandom, "zoophilia" is synonymous with "sexual zoophilia," thanks to the actions of notorious past bestialists in zoophiles' clothing. As a result, "zoophilia" has since become synonymous with "bestiality." Looking at it from a fair perspective, a WikiFur article should reflect this. While I don't necessarily agree that we're there yet, a whitewash of zoophilia would be worse. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:In my dealings with these people who claim to be "non-sexual zoophiles" I always ask them why they don't just refer to themselves as "animal lovers" or "dog lovers." I have yet to hear a convincing response as to why they choose to endorse this "zoo" community that supports the morality of human-animal sexual contact (I've seen their "training manuals"), instead of so easily dodging the associated stigma. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Vague? ==

I know this is sorely in need of a rewrite, but pointing out which statements are vague would be of enormous help for occasional editors like me. [[User:Leam|Leam]] 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:The lack of defintion is what makes the article (at this point) vague. The term 'paraphilia' should simply not be used-- the intended audience of wikifur is not the psychiatric community and either zoophilia in our sense can be made plain without an education in that field, or the term ('zoophilia') and article don't belong here. On the other hand, even outside that profession, the term does very much refer to specifically sexual interest in animals (terms ending in -philia/-phile in english refer to biological impulses regarding a thing, or 'abnormal' attraction to a thing) and does not mean just any kind of positive regard for animals whatsoever, a concept that is readily expressed in english already. Nor is it being used to mean that in the fandom, where love of animals is nigh ubiquitous. The two elephants in the room are as follows: 1) Zoophilia is a subset of bestiality-- one with an emotional connotation. 2) Zoophiles have invented the term because they don't like the social censure (and criminality) that attaches to the word 'bestiality.'
:To me, the only question is, are we going to put the defintion: '''Zoophilia is interest in bestiality, with a connotation of emotional depth,''' in there, or is wikifur in the business of keeping things (like the bestiality of zoophiles) hidden? --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::Wikipedia's audience is not psychologists, and [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|they use the word paraphilia too]], because ''that's the best word to describe the concept''. You don't dumb down your content just because you're afraid they won't understand what it means. Assume your readers are, at the least, willing to read a link providing information for a word they don't understand
::As for "keeping things hidden" - some people (some of whom are members of the furry fandom) claim that they are zoophiles but are not interested in bestiality. Now, there's an argument that they are using the word incorrectly - at least according to the paraphilia definition - but it's not our job to stop them from doing so. As a third party, we report on the actual situation, so we ''should'' say that some use it in this manner - as someone who has a deep and abiding but not necessarily sexual interest in animals. To take an example - I'm a furry fan but I ''don't'' have a deep and abiding interest in animals in general - at least, not to that extent. I have an interest in animals that are also (somewhat intelligent) people. Zoophiles, in the use of the word described in this paragraph, are the kind of people who devote lots of time to their "animal friends", and leave all their money to them in their wills. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

==Re: Last Edit==

In contemplating the recent vandalism of the page and other, sometimes slightly more maturely expressed views preferring some distance be maintained between Furry culture and and interest in bestiality, I tried to create a more neutral paragraph regarding what self-identified zoophiles think about zoophilia and bestiality, which I think was easily misread to say that the views attributed zoophiles were broadly accepted in the fandom, which is at least unclear. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

==WRONG!!!==
I don't know how many of you are using other sites or what you've just heard to describe Zoos, but I NEED to fix this. Zoophilia =/= Bestiality. I'm a Zoophile, I do not have sex with animals. Not all zoos are sexually attracted to animals. Some only feel emotional love for them (the way humans feel emotional love for other humans) and would never even dream of having sexual contact with them. Period. I'm fixing the page.[[User:98.18.25.169|98.18.25.169]] 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
:Zoophilia, from which Zoophile derives, is definitely about sexual interest in animals. Nobody's mistaken to say that it's about sexual attraction. If you misunderstood whether the term zoophile applies to you as somebody with no sexual attraction to animals, your dismay is understandable. But zoophilia definitely references sexual interest. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
::On reviewing the edits made I'm going to seek guidance from an admin on reverting the edit made, because it definitely harms the integrity of the article. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
::Is that really the case? Where's your reference? [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Wikipiedia's version of this article]] suggests the term has a wider usage. The American Heritage Dictionary also gives sexual attraction as [http://www.answers.com/topic/zoophilia the second definition], not the first. Compare [[plushophilia]]. I appreciate that you may believe otherwise; but if so, this is an ''opinion'', and needs to be stated as such - not as accepted fact. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Factually, zoophilia is, by definition, always, about sexual attraction of humans to animals. Yes, I'm sure. See any copy of the DSM; that (psychology) is where the term in its present usage comes from-- it's a technical term that explicitly involves sexual attraction. See also Wikipedia's article on the same term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia Zoophilia]
:::Moreover, the edit that was done fails exactly the test you propose, as you should be able to see by reading it-- it was done, as the anonymous editor has clearly stated was his/her intent, to *obfuscate* a meaning, NOT to present another point of view about zoophilia. You're defending people destroying information in the Wiki, GR.
:::(Incidentally, until wikifur has a stated, applicable standard of verifiability, asking questions about 'reference' is irrelevant as far as I know, though a quick check of Wikipedia makes the issue plain. Where's the editor's 'reference'? I mean, really, what *is* the Wiki supposed to be? Because I'm tired of trying to help develop Wikifur in good faith when what it seems to relish most is reinventing terms that have precious little to do with the fandom before or after reinvention, to try and hide any meaning that anybody may find embarassing or unpleasant to hear said aloud.)--[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::::We're both pointing at Wikipedia's article, but I'm obviously seeing something different in it than you are. Reading right from the top: "This article is about zoophilia, the emotional and (optionally) sexual attraction of humans to animals." This appears rather different to "Zoophilia is [a] technical term for sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals."
::::I saw the anonymous edit as a person who saw an article presenting one point of view and changing it to show two. Was this new point of view too forcefully expressed? Perhaps. But calling it "obfuscation" means that there is a clear truth to the matter and they are hiding it, which I think is inaccurate. There are truths to be stated, certainly, but we need to draw the line more finely around them.
::::The reality of the situation is that some people use the word differently. If a body of people are doing this, then we need the equivalent of "some people use this word to mean X" in the article - even if that is not the ''clinical'' definition in one particular source (and if we give that, we need to say which one - there are many such sources and they may have differing views). We don't judge whether they're right or wrong, because we don't ''have'' to; it's not our job to decide "ultimate truth". We just have to represent their view accurately along with all other views - not necessarily in equal proportion, but without disagreeing with any particular viewpoint - and let the reader make up their own mind.
::::References are not required for most articles or most assertions on WikiFur. However, when there is disagreement, it becomes the word of one person against the word of another. Edit wars are unsatisfactory, so what we do is ask that if one person wants a piece of the article to stick the way that it is, they have to provide a reference - they have to back up their claims with evidence from other sources. Typically the result is that the claims made in the article become more specific, because everyone can agree on their truth.
::::If you want to be definite, make specific claims attributed to others, such as "X is defined in Y as Z", rather than blanket claims such as "X is Z". That means it is not us who is making the assertion - and that makes the article better, because it does not rely on unattributed assertions which no reader can evaluate. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::GR, the first paragraph of the article on wikipedia makes inescapably clear that zoophilia is a definitionally sexual matter. The line you refer to references the disambig page; that line is not part of the text of Wikipedia's actual Zoophilia article. The article over and over discusses zoophilia as specifically sexual in nature, and the only thing that contradicts this view in that article is a section about word usage whose only supporting reference is dictionary.com! (More about cherry-picking meaning out of dictionaries below.) Throughout the entire rest of the article, it clearly assumes that zoophilia is definitionally sexual. Read the article, or don't, but don't pretend the wikipedia Zoophilia article reads as though "nonsexual zoophilia" was a meaningful subject, because it plainly does not.

:::::You are wrong about whether it's inaccurate to call what the anonymous edit obfuscation-- in fact, that's too weak a term. They plainly set out to obliterate a view on what zoophilia is-- that it is definitionally sexual. And indeed, they obliterated it! Intentionally! It's nothing to do with how forcefully expressed the view was-- it's to do with the fact that they intentionally overwrote information with different information. They did NOT change the article to show two views, they just overwrote one. If you read the edit, you know that. Please advise whether you support that kind of information-obliterating edit. I don't want to contribute to a wiki where information obliteration is generally held to be a good idea, and my doubts about your support for such behavior are strong and legitimate.

:::::Regarding your remark: "The reality of the situation is that some people use the word differently,": of course that's true, but absent any standard of verifiability, it's at *least* irrelevant, and at worst a major disaster for the integrity of the Wiki. Seriously: I and some other people I know use the word "zoophile" to describe persons who rape and abuse animals. That's exactly what I think the word actually amouts to. If you include every view on a given word, in a given article, you will have a meaningless hodgepodge of contradictory definitions.

:::::So when you say: "We don't judge whether they're right or wrong, because we don't have to; it's not our job to decide 'ultimate truth'." You're setting up and cutting down a straw man. I've not suggested there's some kind of revelatory ultimate truth, and my views don't depend on that idea. Nevertheless, there ARE views that are correct on the preponderance of the evidence, and that *does* have a lot to do with whether they're proper or improper for inclusion on the wiki.

:::::Insisting on disputed views only being included with a reference *is* judging, for this purpose, whether they're right or wrong-- by policy that you've just stated, you DO judge whether views are right or wrong for the purpose of inclusion here.

:::::I've not seen this policy applied on Wikifur, but I'm not the most industrious article reviewer, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, either you have a standard for what constitutes a good reference, or you don't. If you don't, I'm sure I can find references to support the following views: all furries are homosexual, all furries are child abusers, furries never bathe, and so on. Ought I include these views in the article on Furry? You know that I shouldn't-- that's because you know that, even though those are fairly common views, they're unsupported by credible references because they're wrong. It's the wrongness and unsupportedness of them that merit their exclusion.

:::::Also, I meant to take you to task for cherrypicking your dictionary definition of zooophilia. At dictionary.reference.com, there are five listed definitions for zoophilia. Two refer '''exclusively to sexual attraction to animals'''. A third refers to the technical use in psychology without mentioning that it's understood to be sexual in that context (this definition also gives an unrelated technical meaning from botany.) The fourth does include "affection or affinity for animals" along with the sexual meaning (and a technical usage from biology.) The fifth is from a medical dictionary-- written for an audience with a specialized education; it refers to the psychology and biology terms, relevant here being the psychological one. That's four out of five entries for which sexual attraction to animals is the ONLY relevant definition. I mean unless you think the article should cover pollination and parasitism. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bestiality

2008-03-24T01:43:37Z

Furthling:

Zoophilia

2008-03-24T01:31:09Z

Furthling:

{{unreferenced}}
[[Image:Zetapin.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Zeta pin, used in public by some zoophiles]]
'''Zoophilia''' is technical term for sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals. It has been increasingly used in popular and furry culture as an alternative to the term bestiality, because it stresses orientation over acts, and is usually regarded as less prejudicial. (For more information on the context and use of the techical term, see: [[Wikipedia:paraphilia|paraphilia]].)

It is common misconception that [[furries]] are lovers of animals, and (by extension) zoophiles. It is true that a significant proportion of erotic furry artwork and stories involve beings with animal characteristics having sex with each other, or with humans, but it should be noted that the participants are usually [[anthropomorphic]] beings. While some furries are zoophiles, the two terms are not synonymous. Most furries do not have any sexual interest in animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in a fantasy scenario.

==Self-Identified Zoophiles versus bestiality==
Most people who identify themselves as zoophiles distinguish between zoophilia and [[bestiality]]. Though some zoophiles choose to engage in sexual contact with their animal companions, not all do. Zoophiles state that they are lovers of animals, and that sexual contact, when it is done, is an extension of a deeper emotional and perhaps spiritual relationship with the animal. Exactly the same as how a human will have sex with their human companion. They sometimes refer to those who do not have emotional bonds as "beasties," or, more often, "rapists. Zoophiles may draw attention to the distinction between bestiality (an act), and Zoophilia (a sexuality), and to the view that those who have sexual contact with animals without an emotional connection are not zoophiles.

Some self-identified zoophiles also use the term to refer to anyone with the kind of emotional bonds they stress as distinguishing them from bestialists, including those who have no sexual contact with or interest in animals.

==ZooWiki==
[[Image:ZooWiki.png|right|ZooWiki]]
'''ZooWiki''' is a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It notable topics, events and in its subject area. ZooWiki's policies specify that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wolfie (Germany)|Wolfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as literature, authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Zetacon]]

== External links ==
* [http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ ZooWiki] ([http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php%3Ftitle%3DHauptseite&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://zoowiki.zetapin.de/%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff translation])
* ''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.bestiality/browse_frm/thread/b26e8acbd087f127 Zoophilia and Your Health]'' (posted on [[alt.sex.bestiality]])
* [http://mwillett.org/mind/animal-sex.htm Is Sex With Animals Always Wrong?]
* [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ The New Mexico Humane Society on zoophilia]

[[Category:Paraphilias]]

Talk:Zoophilia

2008-03-24T01:18:10Z

Furthling: /* WRONG!!! */

Talk:Zoophilia

2008-03-23T21:27:37Z

Furthling: /* WRONG!!! */

Talk:Zoophilia

2008-03-23T21:25:15Z

Furthling: /* WRONG!!! */

Talk:Zoophilia

2008-03-08T13:56:19Z

Furthling:

Zoophilia

2008-03-08T13:52:34Z

Furthling:

{{unreferenced}}
[[Image:Zetapin.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Zeta pin, used in public by some zoophiles]]
'''Zoophilia''' is technical term for a sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals-- in conventional english, an interest in [[bestiality]]. It has been increasingly used in popular and furry culture as an alternative to the term bestiality, because it stresses orientation over acts, and is usually regarded as less prejudicial. (For more information on the context and use of the techical term, see: [[Wikipedia:paraphilia|paraphilia]].)

It is common misconception that [[furries]] are lovers of animals, and (by extension) zoophiles. It is true that a significant proportion of erotic furry artwork and stories involve beings with animal characteristics having sex with each other, or with humans, but it should be noted that the participants are usually [[anthropomorphic]] beings. While some furries are zoophiles, the two terms are not synonymous. Most furries do not engage in any sexual contact with other animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in a fantasy scenario.

==Zoophilia versus bestiality==
Some people who identify themselves as zoophiles distinguish between zoophilia and [[bestiality]], stating that zoophiles are lovers of animals and perform sexual acts with them as an extension of a deeper emotional and perhaps spiritual relationship with the animal. They sometimes refer to those who do not have emotional bonds as "beasties," and may regard them as abusive, in contrast with zoophile behavior (which they regard as nonabusive).

==ZooWiki==
[[Image:ZooWiki.png|right|ZooWiki]]
'''ZooWiki''' is a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It notable topics, events and in its subject area. ZooWiki's policies specify that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wolfie (Germany)|Wolfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as literature, authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Zetacon]]

== External links ==
* [http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ ZooWiki] ([http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php%3Ftitle%3DHauptseite&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://zoowiki.zetapin.de/%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff translation])
* ''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.bestiality/browse_frm/thread/b26e8acbd087f127 Zoophilia and Your Health]'' (posted on [[alt.sex.bestiality]])
* [http://mwillett.org/mind/animal-sex.htm Is Sex With Animals Always Wrong?]
* [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ The New Mexico Humane Society on zoophilia]

[[Category:Paraphilias]]

Talk:Greek mythology

2008-01-21T02:52:30Z

Furthling: /* Unlike Other Religions? */

{{Featured}}
Sooooo, not mention of Leda and the Swan? [[User:124.171.166.83|124.171.166.83]] 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Unlike Other Religions?==
So, while there are some significant differences between Christian and Islamic mythology and ancient Greek mythology-- foremost of course being that the latter believed in more imaginary beings than the former-- contrasting greek mythology with others by saying it "came from stories," and so on, is inaccurate. All religions of course come from making up stories. Meanwhile, Greek religious traditions are a fairly steady development from prehistory and the bronze age, and had monumental architecture, elaborate formal ritual, and all the other trappings of major & urban religions.

Moreover, if the real intent was to talk about ancient Greek religion, the article is titled incorrectly. But I think it's more approprite to the wiki that the article should discuss Greek mythology, not the "beliefs and rituals" of ancient greece, which indeed is ancient Greek religion. Discussion of religion per se, and contrasts with other religions, should be removed, since they're both misleading and off-topic. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greek mythology

2008-01-21T02:48:50Z

Furthling: /* Unlike Other Religions? */

{{Featured}}
Sooooo, not mention of Leda and the Swan? [[User:124.171.166.83|124.171.166.83]] 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Unlike Other Religions?==
So, while there are some significant differences between Christian and Islamic mythology and ancient Greek mythology-- foremost of course being that the latter believed in more imaginary beings than the former-- contrasting greek mythology with others by saying it "came from stories," and so on. All religions of course come from making up stories. Meanwhile, Greek religious traditions are a fairly steady development from prehistory and the bronze age, and had monumental architecture, elaborate formal ritual, and all the other trappings of major & urban religions.

Moreover, if the real intent was to talk about ancient Greek religion, the article is titled incorrectly. But I think it's more approprite to the wiki that the article should discuss Greek mythology, not the "beliefs and rituals" of ancient greece, which indeed is ancient Greek religion. Discussion of religion per se, and contrasts with other religions, should be removed, since they're both misleading and off-topic. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greek mythology

2008-01-21T02:48:07Z

Furthling:

{{Featured}}
Sooooo, not mention of Leda and the Swan? [[User:124.171.166.83|124.171.166.83]] 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Unlike Other Religions?==
So, while there are some significant differences between Christian and Islamic mythology and ancient Greek mythology-- foremost of course being that the latter believed in more imaginary beings than the former-- contrasting greek mythology with others by saying it "came from stories," and so on. All religions of course come from making up stories. Meanwhile, Greek religious traditions are a fairly steady development from prehistory and the bronze age, and had monumental architecture, elaborate formal ritual, and all the other trappings of major & urban religions.

Moreover, if the real intent was to talk about ancient Greek religion, the article is titled incorrectly. But I think it's more approprite to the wiki that the article should discuss Greek mythology. Discussion of religion per se, and contrasts with other religions, should be removed, since they're both misleading and off-topic. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greek mythology

2008-01-21T02:47:52Z

Furthling:

{{Featured}}
Sooooo, not mention of Leda and the Swan? [[User:124.171.166.83|124.171.166.83]] 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Unlike Other Religions?==
So, while there are some significant differences between Christian and Islamic mythology and ancient Greek mythology-- foremost of course being that the latter believed in more imaginary beings than the former-- contrasting greek mythology with others by saying it "came from stories," and so on. All religions of course come from making up stories. Meanwhile, Greek religious traditions are a fairly steady development from prehistory and the bronze age, and had monumental architecture, elaborate formal ritual, and all the other trappings of major & urban religions.

Moreover, if the real intent was to talk about ancient Greek religion, the article is titled incorrectly. But I think it's more approprite to the wiki that the article should discuss Greek mythology. Discussion of religion per se, and contrasts with other religions, should be removed, since they're both misleading and off-topic.

Category talk:Atheist furs

2007-11-19T06:02:39Z

Furthling:

Category talk:Atheist furs

2007-11-19T05:57:11Z

Furthling:

Template talk:Inappropriate

2007-11-19T05:40:49Z

Furthling:

Can anyone think of a category for the articles that use this template, in line with [[:Category:Cleanup]] and [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified]]? I haven't been able to come up with one. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've added [[:Category:Candidates for deletion]], as a close enough fit. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::It seems as though it would be worthwhile for the <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> category not to automatically include the <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>, so that articles can be marked for appropriateness and remain so without being subject to prompt removal of the <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>-- which of course, once removed, could not then properly be put back. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Could you rephrase, please? I don't understand what you are suggesting or what an unrelated and unused template has to do with things. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::::As you noted abobe, this template, <nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki>-- the template used to denote that a page may not be appropriate to WikiFur-- includes the the <nowiki>[[Category:Candidate for deletion]]</nowiki>-- a category for pages proposed for deletion, which is normally included with <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>-- a template intended to be used to denote that a page is proposed for deletion. My apologies if the reference to the template rather than directly to the category was confusing-- I didn't know you weren't actually using the template.
::::At any rate, as I said, including the category in the template seems counterproductive to me. Either you see discussions of appropriateness as directly being discussions of deletion, or you don't. If so, just mark articles with inappropriate content for deletion and comment on the talk page that it's the appropriteness of the subject matter that raises the question of its deletion. If not, they should be distinct, and the one not include the other automatically. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 05:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Atheist furs

2007-11-17T01:00:22Z

Furthling: /* Re:<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> */

Template talk:Inappropriate

2007-11-17T00:50:55Z

Furthling:

Category talk:Atheist furs

2007-11-17T00:43:09Z

Furthling: /* Re:<nowiki>{{appropriate}}</nowiki> */

Category talk:Atheist furs

2007-11-17T00:42:49Z

Furthling:

Category talk:Articles which lack references

2007-09-10T04:50:51Z

Furthling:

Could somebody advise what wikifur's standard of reference actually is? For 200+ articles to be tagged this way... uh. We must have one. Right? --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:Most (about 130 out of 223) are here from [[Template:Fact]] somewhere in the article, so many of them are really just one or two lines needing reference in an otherwise (probably) sufficiently-referenced article. I tend to add one when I see either an uncited direct quote, [[Wikipedia:WP:WEASEL_WORDS|weasel word]] statements like "Some people say ''[whatever]''", or claims of a record like "Suchandsuch was the first ''[whatever]''".
:I didn't see any direct guideline in the [[Wikifur:Policies and guidelines|policies]] or [[Help:Furry Book of Style|style guide]], but it seems to be more or less in line with what I can find. --[[User:Riismo|Riismo]] 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, well. I can understand flagging direct quotes and other things that reasonably could be cited, like facts about, say, whether Ethiopian Wolves are endangered or what the total female population of the U.S. Virgin Islands is. On the other paw, I note that the nature of the subject of this Wiki makes me doubt that it can really dispense with individual contributors reporting directly on consensus views, however odious "some people say" may be on Wikipedia. At least not without massively expanding this category. I think I proposed a "nature of the authority" system for classifying assertions in Wikifur here, once. But I don't remember hearing anything back.--[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, in a lot of cases a reference can be a lot harder (or sometimes impossible) to find a citation for some useful information, especially considering how often the person editing a page has personal experience regarding the subject. A lot of the time, though, it can be reworded to something almost the same that's either citable or at least verifiable.
:::"A lot of people say ''Soandso'' is a great artist" could instead be "''Soandso'' has one thousand watchers on Furaffinity", so the reader might come to the same conclusion without WikiFur implicitly taking a stance. "Some people say ''Soandso'' is a big jerk" becomes "''Soandso'' has been banned from X, Y, and Z" -- even if X, Y, and Z haven't made a public statement on the matter odds are most people have a friend of a friend in X, Y, or Z who can confirm it to them, and WikiFur's reporting a verifiable/refutable fact instead of implicitly saying "''Soandso'' is a big jerk" on its own.
:::Regardless, it definitely is worth discussing and a policy or guideline about just where the line lies sounds like a good thing. --[[User:Riismo|Riismo]] 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::"Weasel words" have their uses. Sometimes, it can be hard to quantify a given situation. Choosing examples may seem like picking on people, and it's hard when there ''are'' no prominent examples, just a general feeling. There's not much point in saying they're a jerk, though - being banned from X, Y and Z is enough to establish that (perhaps with any reasons given). "You don't have to say Hitler was a bad person, you just say what he did." Ultimately if people disagree with a statement then they are likely to take it out, and if it gets to that point then perhaps it is time to do a little more citation. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Needless to say my concern is not with whether "weasel words" is a valid concept, especially on Wikipedia where there're more clearly defined standards of verifiability and relevance. Rather, it's that much material here is indeed being reported on the basis: "I (ambiguous author) say that several parties (probably not well defined either) observed the subject giving homeless people blankets."

::::What, for example, would be a sufficient "reference" if I want to claim I said "Howdy," to Trickster at Morphicon? Obviously that's trivial, but so in some sense is so much of what gets reported here. Besides which, what is and isn't trivial is a notoriously disputable subject. I think there's a WHOLE lot of content on Wikifur that is simply there on the authority of the author, and for which there's not likely to be any more reliable reference. A solution to that problem is IMO worth thinking/talking about, as is the meaningfulness of a "lack references" tag. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Articles which lack references

2007-09-07T00:25:23Z

Furthling:

Morphic

2007-09-07T00:16:21Z

Furthling: Clarifying inconsistent usage.

A '''morphic''' (or '''morph''' the Greek word for ''form, shape'') is a furry [[character]] that has the body of a half-human, half-animal. Thus it is a character that is [[anthropomorphic]], or partly [[human]] in appearance.

For most, the term is contrastive with the term [[nonmorphic]]. Some understand nonmorphic to mean beings that physically resemble animals, and are human only in mind, whereas others take it to mean human in form. Likewise there are those who regard morphic to mean primarily or solely human in appearance, while others understand the term to mean primarily or entirely like an animal in form.

This article is written primarily from the point of view that '''morphic''' describes beings more nearly human in appearance, and nonmorphic, those more animal in appearance.

==Varying degrees of morphism==

Visually, there are several trends that are often used in the furry version of [[anthropomorphic|anthropomorphism]], and a morph can range anywhere on the scale between human and animal.

Some furries are mostly animals, running on four legs, but can stand on two legs if they want to. They may understand human speech, but can be unable to speak themselves other than in their 'normal' animal way of hisses/barks/roars/whatever. This group would include most Hollywood-style [[werewolves]].

The '''most common''' furry characters on [[MUCK]]s and in [[furry art]] are the ones that are about half-half. They generally have the anatomy of a human being, but with [[paw]]s, animal heads with [[muzzle]]s, [[tail]]s and [[fur]]. Most every one of these animal features can be varied towards either end of the scale.

As such, some within this group have [[digitigrade]] or [[unguligrade]] legs native to their species, and some have [[plantigrade]] legs the same as humans. Some have paws with claws, others have fur-covered human hands with fingernails or claws. Some have human-type hair that can be a different color than their fur, some only have the natural headfur of their animal counterparts.
Even genitals can be entirely human, nearly human or a humanly-proportioned version of the original animal form.

The differences manifest in behavior as well, the vast majority of furries live in a human-like civilization with a human-like culture. Some furries wear [[Clothing|clothes]] and others do not. Some do body- and fur-modifications, such as dyeing the fur or attaching rings and bands to their tails in addition to the common human modifications such as piercings.

At the other end of the scale, the most humanoid ones are commonly found in [[anime]] rather than furry culture, or at a point where the two blend together. These furries are almost completely human with real human skin and hair, but they possess animal ears, tails, hands, or feet in any combination.
{{Anatomy}}
[[Category:Anatomy terms]]

Nonmorphic

2007-09-07T00:04:33Z

Furthling: Comma splice.

'''Nonmorphic''' (may also be written as '''non-morphic''') is a term used differently by different people.

For some, it means characters that have human characteristics such as sentience and/or speech, but which do not have an [[anthropomorphic]] body.

Many [[Disney]] movies, for instance ''[[The Lion King]]'' or ''[[Balto]]'', have nonmorphic characters (in this sense) that can speak and think like a human being, but whose body is that of a normal animal. These are sometimes referred to as [[talking animal]]s.

Another commonly used term for this sense of nonmorphic is [[feral]].

For others, the term denotes characters (persons) who lack any noteworthy morphological features, and thus are entirely human, though sometimes with a similar emphasis on physical form (nonmorphic could mean for them a physically human being with the mind of an animal, which also appears occasionally in some genres.)

== See also ==
* [[:Category:Nonmorphic characters|Nonmorphic characters]]

{{Anatomy}}

[[Category:Anatomy terms]]

Furthling

2007-09-06T23:58:29Z

Furthling:

{{unreferenced}}
'''Furthling''' (born 1970) is an [[wikipedia:atheist|atheist]] [[furry]] who lives in central [[Wikipedia:Ohio|Ohio]], United States. His [[fursona]] is a [[polar bear]]. He has been a conscious member of the fandom since late 2001, but has been roleplaying [[anthropomorphic]] characters online since the early 90s.

==Interests==
Furthling is a [[writer]] of [[anthropomorphic]] fiction and poetry, and an avid online and tabletop role player with a particularly keen interest in designing worlds and settings for role play. He's also an enthusiastic, self-taught student of cognitive science and comparative mythology and religion.

==External links==
{{Contributor}}
* [http://furthling.deviantart.com/ Furthling] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://furthling.livejournal.com/ Furthling] on [[livejournal]]
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/furthling/ Furthling] on [[Fur Affinity]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Writers]]
[[Category:Programmers]]
[[category:Atheist furs]]
[[Category:Polar Bear characters]]
[[Category:Ohio]]
[[Category:1970 births]]

Category talk:Articles which lack references

2007-09-06T23:41:46Z

Furthling: New page: Could somebody advise what wikifur's standard of reference actually is? For 200+ articles to be tagged this way... uh. We must have one. Right? --~~~~

Nonmorphic

2007-09-01T00:13:38Z

Furthling:

'''Nonmorphic''' (may also be written as '''non-morphic''') is a term used differently by different people.

For some, it means characters that have human characteristics such as sentience and/or speech, but which do not have an [[anthropomorphic]] body.

Many [[Disney]] movies, for instance ''[[The Lion King]]'' or ''[[Balto]]'', have nonmorphic characters (in this sense) that can speak and think like a human being, but whose body is that of a normal animal. These are sometimes referred to as [[talking animal]]s.

Another commonly used term for this sense of nonmorphic is [[feral]].

For others, the term denotes characters (persons) who lack any noteworthy morphological features, and thus are entirely human, though sometimes with a similar emphasis on physical form (such that, technically, nonmorphic could mean, for them, a physically human being with the mind of an animal, which also appears occasionally in some genres.)

== See also ==
* [[:Category:Nonmorphic characters|Nonmorphic characters]]

{{Anatomy}}

[[Category:Anatomy terms]]

Non-anthro

2007-09-01T00:10:10Z

Furthling:

'''Non-anthro''' (may also be written as '''non-[[anthropomorphic]]''') is an ambiguous term used by some for [[character]]s that do not share any human characteristics, and by others for characters that only have human characteristics.

According to the former, a non-anthro furry character is a normal [[dog]], [[cat]], [[horse]], ''et cetera''. However, in the furry community the words non-anthro and nonmorphic are often used interchangeably.

According to the latter, a non-anthro character is a normal human.

{{Anatomy}}
[[Category:Anatomy terms]]

Talk:Non-anthro

2007-09-01T00:07:24Z

Furthling:

Today's strip of Pearls Before Swine featured talk about anthropomorphism vs 'non-anthro' ([http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/images/pearls200612387261.jpg]) - I'm not sure how significant this is, but I figured non-anthro wasn't a widely-used abbreviation in the "mundane" world. [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]] 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the three articles wikifur contains on this general subject (the others being 'morphic' and 'nonmorphic'), this is the most confusing of all. Non-anthro clearly, clearly means "not being anthropomorphic," which if applied to an entity taken as a person (which is the general usage) would unquestionably mean a person with an entirely *human* appearance or nature. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nonmorphic

2007-09-01T00:04:52Z

Furthling:

[[Non-anthro]]s can think. All animals do. What else do we all have brains for? - [[User:Unci|Unci]] 23:49, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

:For cooling the blood, of course! :-) --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 04:17, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The obivous reference of "morphic" here is "Anthropomorphic." To me, anyone in the fandom uttering "nonmorphic," means not anthropomorphic, or human, in shape or character. The ambiguity of this usage should at least be noted. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Morphic

2007-09-01T00:01:43Z

Furthling: New page: This article, if it's really meant to contrast "(anthropo)morphic" with (animals with the capacity to think like humans), is a bad idea. For starters, animal-shaped beings that think like ...

This article, if it's really meant to contrast "(anthropo)morphic" with (animals with the capacity to think like humans), is a bad idea. For starters, animal-shaped beings that think like humans are unquestionably anthropomorphic. Secondly, I challenge whether the folk-etymology that analyzes the "morphic" part back out actually widely means/is recognized to mean this. Of course, I'm sure there're little groups that have adopted this usage, but this goes to the root of problems with the scope of Wikifur that prevent it from having even a tentative way of approaching these kinds of questions the way, say, Wikipedia, can.

If somebody said 'Morphic' to me, I would first, realize they were using unecessarily inscrutable jargon, second assume they'd done the same kind of folk-etymological back-analysis of the root '-morphic,' assume the term refered to questions of form, and then assume that 'Morphic' meant something with a *non* human shape.

If nothing else, I think the page should also include mention of the fact that to some people, the word 'Morphic' will entail beings shaped more (or entirely) like an animal than like a human.--[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Panda

2007-08-08T22:57:32Z

Furthling: Red Pandas are even less mustelids than skunks and raccoons. The Superfamily Musteloidea is not mustelids.

[[Image:KDelany-JustinSix.JPG|thumb|right|[[Anthropomorphic]] and [[quadruped]] forms of a Red Panda character]]
[[Image:PlushToyFirefoxAC2006.jpg|right|thumb|A [[plush toy]] Red Panda]]
{{cleanup}}
The '''Red Panda''' (''Ailurus fulgens'' Latin "fire colored cat") or '''Lesser Panda''', is a mostly [[herbivorous]] [[cat]]-sized (60 cm long) [[mammal]]. Its classification has been a matter of debate for some time, as it has characteristics similar to [[giant panda]]s (which are bears), as well as to [[raccoon]]s. It has been classified as part of the raccoon family (''Procyonidae''), and as a member of the bear family (''Ursidae''), but is presently classified in its own family (''Ailuridae''), in a superfamily (''Musteloidea'') that includes [[skunk]]s, [[weasel]]s, and raccoons. It is native to the [[Wikipedia:Himalayas|Himalayas]] and southern [[Wikipedia:China|China]]. Fossil evidence suggests that it once also existed in North America.

Red pandas are also called '''firefoxes''', although they have no relation to true [[fox]]es. ([http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/central.html Mozilla Firefox] uses a true fox in its logo, although Mozilla sells red panda [[plush toy|plushie]]s [http://store.mozilla.org/product.asp?code=MZ1022&catid=3].)

Like the [[Giant Panda]], it eats large amounts of bamboo. The Red Panda, however, has a digestive system more suited to a [[carnivorous]] diet and cannot digest cellulose, so that it must eat a great deal of bamboo to survive. Its diet also includes fruit, roots, acorns, and lichen, and Red Pandas are known to supplement their diet with young [[bird]]s, eggs, small [[rodent]]s, and [[insect]]s on occasion. Captive Red Pandas readily eat meat. Red Pandas are excellent climbers and forage largely in trees. The Red Panda does little more than eat and sleep due to its low-calorie diet.

The Red Panda has semi-retractile [[claw]]s and a "false thumb", really an extension of the wrist bone. Thick [[fur]] on the soles of the feet offers protection from cold and hides scent glands.

The [[species]] is endangered, largely because of habitat loss, though there is also some illegal hunting. Red Pandas are often killed for their coats to make fur hats and clothes. Also, because of the growing population in China, their habitats are knocked down in order to build houses. Approximately 10,000 pandas die per year, and approximately 7,000 of the 10,000 die from deforestation.

{{Wikipedia|Red Panda}}

== Use in [[Furry Fandom]] ==

While not as popular as the giant panda, there are still a number of red panda characters out there. It is often a choice for folks wanting to create a [[character]] or [[fursona]] from the Far East, and not use the much more common (giant) panda as its basis. Another factor in its popularity is the [[plush toy|plushie]]-like cuteness of red pandas of all ages.

== See also ==

* [[:Category:Red Panda characters|Red Panda characters]]
[[Category:Asia]]