Talk:Ren Queenston

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

page seemed to be lacking some information[edit]

fixed it

Done. I've done what I can. --Sneakster 02:40, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Considering Renard identifies as agender, shouldn't this article contain gender-neutral pronouns("they" instead of "he")? If it's completely necessary, there could be a mention of biological sex but it seems to me that neutral language would be more polite towards their identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazy (talkcontribs) .

Per policy, people should be refered to in articles by their prefered pronouns: Help:Furry Book of Style#Articles about people. In this case, what I see in the edit history is that this article was started in 2008 by User:Renard Queenston with male pronouns in the text. If Renard Queenston (now) prefers to be refered to by a different set of pronouns, the article here can be edited to reflect that prefered usage. -- Sine 19:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Renard/Renard Queenston[edit]

In the tracks there only stands "Renard", but "Renard Queenston" is used to refer to his as a person.

So, what's the diffrence between Renard and Renard Queenston? Or are they the same? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

New nicknames and deleted members update[edit]

This article need to be updated cause here's new entries in LapFox such as Rotteen and some other nicknames. And they're members who've been removed to LapFox such as FIAB who returns as Emoticon and who been replaced by Rotteen, as the LapFox's wiki say. And new albums too... - Inumi 12:18, 15 April 2015 (EST)

Sexual abuse and rape[edit]

Shouldn't there be at least a mention of the sexual abuse and rape that Ren has even admitted to? 22:36, 24 January 2014 (EST)

You can mention such things, but they need to be accompanied by solid references/cites (to demonstrate they are factual and not just rumours).--Higgs Raccoon 08:53, 25 January 2014 (EST)
Oh, I can get that; it's not something that Ren has denied. Give me a few minutes. Equivamp - talk 20:49, 14 February 2014 (EST)
Not to step on freedom of the press or anything, but is that whole drama really any of the fandom's business? It seems weird to be including details from someone else's personal life that doesn't have anything to do with anyone else. Crawldragon 19:58, 2 March 2014 (EST)
Not when the actions of any member involved/related to the furry fandom (Mitch Beiro, Mozdoc, Tora, Evil Sibe, Frank Gembeck, Ted Sheppard, Alan T. Panda, Mizzyam, Formic Hivemind, Wolfie Stonespirit, Brown Leopard, Keba, Lightpaws, etc,...), may be, or is, detrimental to the well being to other people in it. - Spirou 23:36, 2 March 2014 (EST)
Solid references, not the blog of the person who is accusing him in the first place. Removing the controversy section until this is fixed. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
The personal account of the person allegedly being molested, that she posted on her own blog, is still "reference". Please don't remove the section if you can't refute the claim, or provide better insight on the matter. - Spirou 09:47, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
I think you should try looking up the definition of a credible, unbiased source.. unless that's not what WikiFur is about, in which case, feel free. Either way, I tried making my edit, but it looks like spam filters block it. You can find his response on the LapFox Facebook, which disproves some of what is said on the Wiki page. So, is there any reason why only one side of the story should be represented? I'll go ahead and remind you that this site literally has a rule of thumbs section, which includes: If there is controversy, make sure to include resources and links to both sides of the issue, and attribute opinion to specific groups of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

You're missing the point. The goal of references is not, in general, to cite an unbiased source for an assertion of undisputed fact; it is to substantiate an attributed statement. If the article says "A says X did Y", we must provide a reference to A's statement. That doesn't mean that X necessarily did Y; nor that such a reference is sufficient for the assertion "X did Y" (and if there is any doubt over that, it is appropriate to make the attribution clear). If you're having a technical issue with referencing, we can talk about that; providing a permalinked URL for to the content you wish to add would be a start. If you get an error message doing that, provide the text of the error message. Removing the section is not an appropriate alternative, and it is likely to be reverted by other editors. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

And you're missing the rule of the website. You didn't say "A says X did Y". You literally just said "X did Y". How do you not understand that difference? What part of "attribute opinion to specific groups of people" and "links to both sides of the issue" don't you understand? Seriously, if I make a Twitter post that says "Renard just adopted 500 kittens and is totally not a rapist" and link to that as a source, that's a perfectly acceptable addition to the page? Try again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
As I said above, "if there is any doubt over that, it is appropriate to make the attribution clear". If you see that someone has cited an opinion as a fact, then you fix that. Removing it is not fixing it. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
Sorry for being abrasive. It's frustrating not seeing credible sources, but I do see your point now. Edited the page to make both sides happy until I can get the references together to add more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I remember cleaning up an article about Lapfox Trax elsewhere and there is plenty of material that can easily be referenced. As far as I'm concerned, WikiFur isn't exactly dragging Renard Queenston over the hot coals. Interstellar Shipping & Trading Co. 19:29, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
So then reference it. LOL Either way, there we go. Edited to make everyone happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . Above are a couple external links. Renard Queenston and no amount of white knighting is ever going to change that. While I enjoy the drama, I'm not really here to contribute to it, so I'm going to leave it at that. Interstellar Shipping & Trading Co. 19:43, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
So in the sake of less drama, you have to realize that you're still just posting blogs and forum posts. This is no different than Renard's post that basically says none of this ever happened, and that she was completely aware of the condition and was otherwise consensual. There's his side that the wiki page wouldn't let me post. I'll leave it as "rumored to" on the article instead of removing it, since that's exactly what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

He's already been disgraced and you know it. I'm just going to remove that section out of pity. Interstellar Shipping & Trading Co. 19:56, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

Aaaaaaaand exactly my point. Thanks for at least admitting your intentions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Well damn you caught me! Can you ever forgive me? Interstellar Shipping & Trading Co. 20:03, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
I can always forgive you. But I was actually happy with leaving it as an unproven claim. I'm not sure if GreenReaper will be okay with removing it entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
The actual text is hella long, but I don't get "none of this ever happened and she was completely aware of the condition" from it. On the contrary, the quote that springs out at me (a page or so from the end) is "if it is something you do in your sleep, then so be it, that is fine--i did not hear about any of it until now, though." Renard says that they talked to a past partner about it; not this one. Both parties seem to agree that there were both consensual and non-consensual acts, and that Renards's partner was not informed of the condition (they differ over whether Renard should have known it was a problem). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:28, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
Still confused about the physical abuse part. Nevermind. Site's a huge joke, and clearly there is no interest in "both sides." At least you're that honest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Ren v.s Renard[edit]

I've noticed that this website uses Renard to refer to the real person, but shouldn't it just be Ren? Nowadays, the real person is called Ren. I'm really confused, since there are lots of edits regarding their name... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LexiconTohin (talkcontribs) .

Well, maybe it should, if there's evidence that this is the name which others regularly call them. It doesn't magically happen here without someone editing and moving the article, though! --GreenReaper(talk) 08:08, 20 February 2016 (EST)

"Ren" and "Real Name"[edit]

This is incredibly offensive, someone's birth name is not relevant if they don't go by it and referring to a deadname as a real name is highly transphobic. I understand peeps might want name at birth as a way to identify them given they're problematic but it's also kinda doxing. pretty fucked up imo. - {{unsigned|2601:602:8980:408:6d5e:9fb3:77e5:63f6|

Except they are a musician whose art work is under a ton of different names. Each one still in use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .